User talk:Dbachmann

Hello, Dbachmann. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WP:ANI

I imagine this block probably came as a bit of a horrible shock. I've unblocked both of you, per my comments at AN/I. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

actually, not as a horrible shock, but as a useful opportunity to reflect on the state of the wiki and my role in it. I will consider this for a few more days to avoid rashness, but I am thinking of having myself de-adminned, as the flak I am getting just for being an admin stands in no proportion to the usefulness of the occasional page-move or vandal-slapping. I will also consider moving on to being more active on sister projects such as wiktionary and de-wiki instead of giving more of my time to difficult areas on en-wiki. This "God of Israel" thing is really an excellent test case, as it shows the capability of the admin community to deal with clashes of educated editors with the absolutely clueless editing out of pure ideology or religious sentiment. WP:Experts are scum has always been a problem here, but it is up to the admins to tip the balance in favour of those with a clue. If the admin community cannot perform this, these religious topics will turn out as useless trash.

This does not mean I simply class anyone who disagrees with me as an uneducated hack. I am perfectly able to distinguish informed disagreement from simple failure to grasp the issue. I have frequently accused Deacon of Pndapetzim of bias, yet I would never group him with the likes of Jheald, as he is clearly willing and able to read and discuss encyclopedic references. But the reality we are facing is that the religion topics are swarming with uneducated hacks. Not just the religionists, also the teenage atheists, both equally ideological and clueless. I used to be willing to spend time directing such deadlocks towards an encyclopedic outcome, and I have years of experience of how to do this, but right now I am seriously considering why I should think this is worth my time. --dab (𒁳) 12:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No comment on this particular situation, but unfortunately what you describe is just the way of English wiki. Most admins and arbitrators are unsuited to encyclopedic activities, don't have enough expertise to see the problems such editors bring and in any case regard themselves as being above the drudgery of content editing and childishness of caring about accuracy. I have a feeling this is reinforced by the US thing, a natural suspicion in US culture towards intellectuals as the natural enemies of the truest authority, market democracy.[1] So you'll just need to give less attention to controversial/popular content or accept that you will be blocked quite regularly for your efforts. I myself stay away from popular articles for this very reason, and there are several other areas I now avoid because they have been overrun by cranks. That still leaves plenty of areas for me to contribute. There are plenty of areas for yourself too if you want to contribute without maximum hassle. I think you have done remarkably well so far, though I don't think you make your own efforts any easier with the way you talk to/about them. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do stay around on en.wiki, dab. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

For your information, Deacon, I do both content and administrative work. I recently made a major overhaul of Sante Kimes, which was being edited by someone with a massive and obvious COI. There was eventually a need for some administrative action there and as I was involved I did what I was supposed to do and found another uninvolved admin to handle it. And dab, I won't be apologizing or scrubbing your block log either. I realize you probably don't think much of me at this point but all of this has been in the interest of getting you to see the forest through the trees. Move warring and edit warring are unacceptable from any user, let alone an experienced administrator. I realize religious articles are a hotbed of uninformed, pushy behavior but what you have been doing is not helping the situation. I'm not trying to run you off, but I do think you have lost your way a bit and need to get some perspective on these issues. Much of the remainder of what Deacon has said above is good advice. There are plenty of areas of Wikipedia that could use the attention of a highly experienced user such as yourself that are not full of angry POV pushers. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You "think you have lost your way a bit and need to get some perspective on these issues"? And your way of doing that is slapping me with a block without prior warning? Are you out of your mind or something? Perhaps you should consider handing in your admin buttons. I may have moved a semi-protected article, but at least I don't go around blocking veteran editors for no good reason.

I have repeatedly asked you to step in and show how you propose to resolve the situation. I don't see you making any progress. This is probably because "hodbeds" such as this need experienced admins, with balls. As long as you do not have it in you to tackle this sort of situation, I will thank you for not stabbing those in the back who do. It is the angry POV pushers that make this difficult. Have a look at my contribution history, I do lots of edits to articles without these, it's not like I am somehow addicted to the angry mob attention.

There are two ways for you to redeem yourself. Either apologize to me, or else, if you are too proud for that, grow a pair of your own and step in and show how you would handle the situation. That's the vastly more difficult approach, as you would begin with reading up on the actual encyclopedic content involved, but it is also the approach that would benefit the project the most (if you are up to it).

Note that I do not insist on or even prefer an apology from you. I would much prefer seeing you actually fix the problem. I am not here to make friends, or to gain status, or to be respected. I am here to write encyclopedic articles, and I will prefer an unfriendly editor who gets things done over a friendly chap who just makes a mess of things any day. --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. No, I haven't lost my mind, and my testicles are just fine. Just because I haven't chosen to become your pawn and join your "enforcement action" here doesn't mean I am incapable of acting in any such situation as you very nastily imply here. I blocked you for edit warring, which you did. You've been blocked for it before and we had already discussed the ill-advised nature of your actions in this area, so you were already more than adequately warned. Unfortunately you seem to be one of those users who has managed to make themselves immune to the rules and nothing short of an ArbCom case can stop you. And now you are making nasty personal attacks at me, so I will not be engaging in any further direct discussion with you. Please do resign your adminship, you have become truly lost and out of touch, despite what your apologists would have us believe. Goodbye. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You know all about when to switch to less controversial content or to devote your time and brains to other channels. At the same time, the work you do here in controversial areas is multiple the value, because we sadly lack people (with or without tools) who have the tenacity, knowledge, imagination and sense of reality to handle all sorts of tendentious editing in these fields. I cannot really characterize this incident positively, but I don't think it's very relevant, à la longue. Just like previous incidents, including an arbcom case with an odd outcome, haven't proven to be very relevant. Just time-wasting. You are the best judge of how and where to invest your energy, but you'd leave a vacuum here. I echo Itsmejudith's request. If this all makes me an apologist, so be it. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of being branded an "apologist", I agree, although I wouldn't blame you if took a long break from patrolling Wikipedia's no-go areas. Why not join the New Model Admin corps for a change? Then you can spend hours on end discussing minor points of process in a nice warm police station. Judging from the current ANI thread, this is predictably becoming more about hurt feelings and a quest for "personal validation" rather than improving the encyclopaedia. All the best. --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox's "apologist" epithet just reveals that Beeble has zero understanding of dab's history of interactions. dab and I have had more than one run-in in the past. We have the vices of our virtues. dab's virtue is that he knows a lot of stuff; his vice is that he knows he does. Tant pis, get over it, stick around and learn something. That we need to retain an editor with expert knowledge of Sanskrit, historical linguistics, Proto-Indo-European, Indian history, European history, is bleedingly blindingly obvious to anyone who has heard of those topics. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

dab don't deprive the rest of us of your presence because you have fallen out with a few misguided souls. You have an ascorbic style with editors who don't come up to the mark on your specialist subjects, but surely that makes us all try harder to make Wikipedia better? It would be a sadder place if we were all one homogenous mass! Best regards whatever your decision. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ascorbic style? Acerbic, perhaps. Where will we be without Dieter to insist on standards of literacy and scholarship? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC) No ascorbic as in 'acid', but acerbic will work too, but if you think about it ascorbic works better!! Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(An essential nutrient, and effective at neutralizing harmful reactive radicals. I'd say it's a good choice :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My attempt at Word play was entirely in deference to, dab Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood. dab, you are officially declared antiscorbutic. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Here we go again... See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kaveh Farrokh. --Crusio (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

your expertise

This is a pretty strange state of affairs, and since if I commented on it I'd piss off parties on both sides, let me just leave the message I came here to leave. When you come back, here's an article that could use some whipping into shape by someone with your experience and expertise. It's undergone recent expansion.Cynwolfe (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In a similar vein, something strange has been happening at Nebra sky disk. If you get a moment when you get back, maybe have a look? Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Armenian conflict

I've been asked for advice on this, please see my talk page. I'll take a look at the two articles mentioned above. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

History of Africa

I've added some comments about your merge undo at Talk:North Africa during Antiquity. In short, you haven't actually undone the merge until you've removed the content from History of Africa. I fixed a huge duplicated content problem that you've just restored, basically. Please comment further at the North Africa during Antiquity talk page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I also haven't undone the merge because I didn't just restore the broken article, I wrote a new article based on the broken one. Fixing the History of Africa article is quite another job beyond my present scope of involvement. "Duplicated content" is putting it mildly. "History of Africa" would probably be better of by being cut down to a very short WP:SS pointer page to the relevant articles. --dab (𒁳) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember, a while ago I completely rewrote History of Africa, and people thought it was a good effort. Since then others have further improved it. I hope it does remain as more than just a page of pointers. It is a pretty essential topic for an encyclopedia. I know it will continue to attract vandals and POV pushers. Welcome back BTW. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

yes, sorry, I did not look at or edit history of Africa. I am sure it is in good hands. But I do not think there can be a meaningful "history of Africa" (as opposed to History of North Africa) article along the lines of ancient-medieval-modern. There was neither an ancient nor a medieval period in most of Sub-Saharan Africa. None of the work you did would be lost if it was distributed among History of North Africa and History of Sub-Saharan Africa (History of the Sahel, History of West Africa, History of the Horn of Africa, etc.) I much prefer the brief format of the present History of Asia, although it should be fleshed out with more pointers to History of East Asia, History of South Asia, History of Central Asia, History of Southwest Asia.

Now I spent a few hours with Wikipedia yesterday. This was due to current events in Libya, I tried to get basic coverage of the tribes of Libya, found that the Berber topics are in a sad mess, and finally stumbled on Berberism and its effect on our articles about the ancient history of North Africa. But I am still ignoring my giant watchlist, and I hope to limit my involvement here to weekends for the time being. Regards, --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we can agree that History of Africa must be consistent with the approach in recent historiography of Africa. So when I have a minute I will look at the major textbooks and see what divisions they use. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

of course. This isn't a content dispute, it is an editorial choice of how to present material. An encyclopedia article isn't the same genre as a textbook in terms of presentation, but the toc of a good textbook will still be a good guide towards the toc of an encyclopedia article.

My entire involvement here is my recreation (and improvement) of North Africa during Antiquity. Whatever you do with the history of Africa, I assume it is clear that it cannot go into the history of North Africa during Classical Antiquity in enough detail to render such a standalone article superfluous. The present section of History_of_Africa#Role_of_the_Berbers imo is an unthinking copy-paste job moving sub-par material from one page to another. Of course the "history of Africa" article can have a paragraph about the Berbers, but that paragraph will need to be a sweeping overview, not some random detail about the Punic War. --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. History of Africa needs to have many sections linked to Main articles, my only quibble is whether it should mainly be a link to Main articles without much summary of them. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(Butting in) :I used to have Berber people on my watchlist and thought about revising it once or twice using Brett and Fentress (the standard book on the Berbers in English) but the thing is a complete mess and I'm not sure I can be bothered to maintain pages like this any more. At least the dodgy population figures have now gone (they used to vary between 15 and 45 million, all random guesses added by fly-by-night IPs). Given the unusual status of the Berbers, it's also a magnet for race cranks of various stripes arguing about haplogroups - and I really can't be bothered by that kind of thing. From what I remember, problems were more likely to come from Arab nationalists rather than "Berberists" (for instance, AFAIK, the history section has no mention of the Berber Spring and a reference to the Tangier Revolt was deliberately removed). Slabs of random text have also been dumped there from other articles. I've just removed a huge, WP:UNDUE chunk about "Greek-Berber beliefs" from the section about Berber belief which does not even mention marabouts. Folantin (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

well, Folantin, if we can tackle the Hindutvavadis, the Illyrianist Albanians, the far-out Proto-Indo-European Armenians, and the eccentric and belligerent people formerly known as Assyrians-Chaldeans-Syriacs-Aramaeans, and the Atlantean-Lemurian Tamils, I am sure we can deal with a little bit of Arab chauvinism vs. Berberism.

The race cranks are probably the worst problem. Someone should probably charge in and lose all the genetics nonsense, and reduce the article to a brief but presentable basic overview. Once the mess is gone, the article will be much easier to protect, as it is difficult to justify rolling back bad edits to an article that is already so bad that it cannot really be degraded any further.

I think the Berber coverage just suffers from lack of attention from good editors in the past. I just came across Berber pantheon, a completely unreferenced eclectic list of North African gods. This should probably just be deleted.

Perhaps it helps to think of the Berber problem in terms similar to the Basques problem. Which seems to be reasonably under control these days. "Genetics" sections in ethnic group articles are always bad news, not because population genetics isn't a valid or interesting field, but because the proportion of editors that have sufficient knowledge to interpret the expert literature pales in comparison to the number of ethnic race cranks. "Spaniards have a common genetic identity of over 70% with Basques" is a surprising claim indeed, considering that humans have 98.8% genetic identity with chimps. Perhaps the idea is that technically, 99.9% is also "over 70%". --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you consider yourself to be both Basque and Spanish, then you share more than 99.9% of your DNA with yourself. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no expertise whatsoever in genetics. I know some of these kooks are pulling a fast one but I lack the scholarly ammunition to use against them. The Spanish/Basque common identity is funny though. I think another basic problem with the main Berber people is that the author(s) have no concept of chronology. The history skips around like crazy, e.g. Septimius Severus is mentioned before Jugurtha. It's been a long time since I looked into the Berbers, however, and I'd have to do a lot of re-reading. I also remember looking into the History of Libya, which had huge gaps (some now filled, apparently - but the 19th century section is inadequate as it omits any mention of Anglo-French rivalry in the early decades and the Italians just turn up out of the blue in 1911, whereas - IIRC- they had been gradually asserting their influence over the country since the 1878 Treaty of Berlin). Oh well, some other day maybe...--Folantin (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Berber pantheon should probably redirect to a fairly decent section here: Early History of Tunisia#Ancient Berber religion although I see we have a rather bad article Berber beliefs - maybe the section from the Tunisia article should be copied there? Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

sigh, why do we have an article called Early Berber History of Tunisia? As opposed to Early Phoenician History of Tunisia? I can see there is a lot of junk to be cleaned up in this corner of Wikipedia. Yes, "Ancient Berber religion" belongs merged into Berber mythology. And "Berber mythology" is an excellent confirmation of Folantin's observation that whoever wrote this stuff has no concept of chronology whatsoever. This is of course a very common feature of ethnic essentialism. If you are an ethnic essentialist, time and chronology do not exist, the only thing that matters is your immutable racial essence. --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the essence of essentialism. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you read that wrong, the article is Early History of Tunisia which has a subsection Ancient Berber religion. I haven't looked at it carefully but at first glance the section looks well referenced. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you read it wrong. Early History of Tunisia was a redirect to Early Berber History of Tunisia, and that was a confused mess jumping here and there in the history and prehistory of North Africa, dumping the term "Berber" in every sentence if possible. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the pre-redirect version I presume, but I'm puzzled as I saw it less than an hour ago. Something to do with Google I'd guess, as I found it through Google. It looked as though there were some useful references in it about Berber religion. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it for splitting, now at Prehistoric Tunisia. There is valid material in there, but as Folantin said, conflated without any grasp of chronology or topical focus. I also split the Berber genetics stuff to a new genetic history of North Africa. I don't have high hopes for that article, but at least it is now explicitly about genetics, and it stops messing up the Berber article. --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Berber pantheon is probably unsalvageable as the article could well be an example of the existential fallacy. Maybe a redirect? --Folantin (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

yes, redirect. I tend to advocate deletion only if the term itself does not exist. In this case, google books gives me four (4) occurrences of the term "Berber pantheon":

1. Bilmawn, celebrated everywhere at the Great Feast of the Sacrifice, takes his place in this venerable gallery, which indeed gathers together the ancient divinities of an original Berber pantheon.
2. This cult [of Serapis ] spread to Tripolitania where, through the influence of Roman soldiers it was brought into the Berber Pantheon.
3. Latin soldiers introduced the popular god Serapis ... into the Berber pantheon.
4. (figurative) Resistance to Rome was symbolized by Jugurtha, who occupied a privileged place in the Berber pantheon.

so, the term generally refers to the unknown polytheistic religion of Roman era Berber tribes which was undergoing syncretism due to contact with Rome. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm probably going to move Berber mythology to Berber beliefs (or something like that). Bad as the article is, its scope is way beyond "mythology". I'm not sure if I've got much time at the moment to invest in improving these pages - although I'm sure it would be a good idea to do so before the Middle Eastern uprisings spread to Algeria. --Folantin (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Early History of Tunisia

Further information: Early History of Tunisia and Prehistoric Tunisia

I am rather annoyed. Someone here manifestly did not possess the good graces and courtesy to inform the prior contributor of their plans to cut up into pieces and so appropriate what was a very long and well-referenced article. This article as "Early History of Tunisia" had been on Wikipedia for several years. That it is part of a much larger, tightly-organized, multi-article work, I vainly thought, would give pause to potential contributors. Naturally they would want to consider the views of another (presumably, having themselves written articles) and discuss the issues before launching any major revisions.

Unfortunately a few days ago I re-titled it "Early Berber History of Tunisia". Today the reversal of the new title was considered. The original title had left out the word "Berber" because, as I remember it, the word "Berber" appears to be a magnet for irresponsible users. Also, I realized that the article's subtitles were composed with the prior title in mind. Again unfortunately, what major changes I then found today were surprising and, of course, discomforting.

The article is meant to fit into a History of Tunisia. As the article's introduction states, it includes both history from inscriptions and writing, and prehistory from artifacts and ruins, and otherwise. The style of historical narrative it employes does not always follow a timeline. It does not, e.g., present a history of "ancient Berber religion" but gives information drawn from sources differing widely in era and location, which is clearly documented. As matters stand now, we know relatively little of early Berber religious beliefs and practices. By submitting what we do broadly know, it allows the intelligent reader to form their own ideas. For the unintelligent reader, who can say? That some beliefs seem to persist over time in a variety of cultures is well known.

In regard to Berber religion, the information in this article and the sources cited can be used to start independent research for another Wikipedia article. Yet it would be wrong to pirate the text itself for another article, and destroy the source article in the process. Certainly the worldview of the early Berbers remains somewhat illusive but nonetheless relevant to understanding early Tunisia.

Each section stands alone, and together they provide parallax views on the subject of early Tunisia (the introductory article History of Tunisia discusses the anachronism of using the name 'Tunisia' before the Islamic period). The "Berber language history" section is of a great time depth, yet does provide some clues as to the emergence of the Berbers from unwritten prehistory into recorded history. The section on Berber tribes spans a long period of recorded history and, as the section explains, is meant to provide background and some reference for the unfolding of the history of Tunisia into the Punic era, the Roman era, and then the early Islamic (Fatimid, Zirid, Almohad) period. The worth of such information is itself criticized and the article, of course, is part of a series on Tunisian history.

It is submitted that the best course now would be to return the article to its status prior to the name change. It would be appreciated if the person who did the changes undid them. In any case, several days courtesy time will be allowed to pass before any corrections from this end, if needed, begin.

Please notify and consult with prior contributors before making major revisions. Elfelix (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your annoyance, but in my opinion the article was absolutely unsalvageable. Really. Please see the discussion we had about it just above on this page. You seem to think that the article as it stood made sense. It did not. It was a sort of confused essay on the hoary antiquity of the Berbers, with an elastic use of "early" to include anything between 20,000 BC and 1000 AD as "Berber" just because the author apparently liked stream-of-conscioiusness associating about Berbers. This is not what Wikipedia does. By your own admission, the article was an {{essay-entry}}, where you try to communicate to the "intelligent reader" certain general ideas you hold about the "Berber essence". Wikipedia is not for this.

But I do not have the leisure to begin a drawn-out dispute on this, so, WP:BRD. Perhaps you want to seek more input on this. I do not have a fixed opinion on how to fix it, and I hoped my cleanup suggestion was preferable over just deleting the article as unsalvageable, but it is beyond dispute that fixing is needed here.

Anyone else seeing this, please consider chiming in at the article talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't move without consensus and proper procedures

If you want an article from an original name you need to discuss its move on the talk page and request page move through proper procedures.The article was created in 2002 under the name of Volksdeutsche[2]Also do not delete references regarding Nazi atrocities like you did here[3]. If you want to change the name of the article from its original version than start a discussion, request a page move and go from there. But I do not see chances of that succeeding-Volksdeutsche is a unique word, just like Kulturkampf, Blitzkrieg or Ostsiedlung, with unique meaning.

• I see now a problem-somebody created a link on Germans page to Ethnic Germans. I have nothing against creation of such a article(properly sourceed), but it must be seperated from Volksdeutsche article which is a different thing alltogether and was created to describe especially this specific word and definition.

• I also think there might be a bit mess up right now, since one user did enter a lot of OR and his own claims into the articles.But definitely Ethnic Germans and Volksdeutsche are not the same, and Volksdeutsche should be a seperate article

• In any case I created a thread here to discuss any changes if you are interested[4]

Have a good day. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

sigh, it is pretty difficult to know which is the "original article" because people keep moving things around without discussion because they are so convinced they know better (sound familiar)? It seems I moved Ethnic German to Ethnic Germans back in August 2007. This was then moved to German diaspora in September 2007. I reverted this to Ethnic Germans (together with a detailed rationale on talk) in October 2008.[5]

As you can see here, at that point we did have one article on Volksdeutsche (the historical nationalist concept) and one on the term "Ethnic Germans" as it is used in English today. Now what the hell happened to the former "Ethnic Germans" page? It took me about 15 minutes to figure out it was moved to Emigration from Germany without discussion, by Johanneswilm (talk · contribs) on 13 February. This was hidden from history because AnthonyAppleyard unwittingly deleted the redirect left behind on 18 February trying to clean up the mess you and Johanneswilm were making.

It seems that Johanneswilm has been disrupting things here, and your attempts to fix them have created even more of a mess. The only solution will be to put things back exactly the way they were before either Johanneswilm or you touched them, and you can take it from there via discussion. --dab (𒁳) 19:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My chief concern here is that the article Volksdeutsche remains-as it is vital to many topics regarding XX century history. I am only partially interested in other articles connected to it. If you know how to fix the mess, please do. Have a good day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I just notice all your guyses comments -- listen all my changes were throughly documented on the discussion pages for all the articles. Especially all the aggregation of people who according to completely different criteria belong to Germans, Danes, Norwegians, Austrians -- that is simply unscientific by any account. You want evidence for how Germans, etc. are defined -- well the only instance that gives you such a definition is the government of the country in question. Otherwise you should provide counter-evidence that the majority of the world population in fact defines Germans in an "ethnic way" according to which there are 155 million people that qualify according to that criteria. I am not promoting my own political opinion here -- this is what the countries in question have come to using democratci processes. Most of these countries have conservative governments. --Johanneswilm (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

well, you are wrong. This isn't a "scientific" topic, and consequently naive syllogisms and definitions aren't helpful. Assuming that there even is a "country in question" with defining power over ethnicity isn't just that, it is circular reasoning. This also is not about the "majority of world population". It's not a vote. Seriously, you clearly haven't even understood what Wikipedia is trying to do. Wikipedia does not report the "Truth" as defined by some arbitrarily chosen authority such as a government, nor does it do polls of world population. The only thing we do is report opinions published in expert literature. If there is a consensus, we report a consensus. If there is a dispute, we report a dispute. Before you understand what we mean by WP:DUE there is simply no point for you to participate in any discussion on the wiki because you won't know what is being discussed. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Childish pseudohistory

Please check three maps:

• Armenian Empire2.png
• Armenian Empire3.png
• MapSlide.jpg

All of them are made by one Armenian lad called Aram-van who is trying to convince us that Kingdom of Armenia stretched as far as India, China and Africa (as you can see it here, here and here). I'll also notice Dougweller about that issue since you aren't much active as I can see from leading infobox. --109.60.17.202 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah, this is probably just another incarnation of Ararat-arev. Should be blocked on sight. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That might explain his lack of opposition to being blocked (or it might not). This is the first good explanation I've seen to date that the POV-pushing was too strong. It also looks very similar to A/A, yes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Most difficult language to learn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Most difficult language to learn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most difficult language to learn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Tigraxauda.jpg

Hello, Dbachmann,

recently the commons-user:Jameslwoodward delinked that picture File:Tigraxauda.jpg from all articles you uploaded from livius.org, because there´s no OTRS-permission from livius.org. We had a discussion about the problems of missing permission there: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive3#request:livius.org. Do you have any OTRS-permission or a mail about the permission from livius.org? Best regards.--92.229.32.118 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, my understaning is that this is an unoriginal reproduction of an ancient 2-dimensional work of art. Assuming the issue is that a relief is not technically 2-dimensional: neither is an oil-paiting, or a pencil drawing. Nothing in this universe is 2-dimensional. A 2-dimensional work of art is a work of art that only depicts its subject from one angle, which is clearly the case here. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Jameslwoodward said, according to copyright law a photographical reproduction of 3-dimensional object needs a permission or a licence of the photographer (so probably every reproduction, but Tigaxauda.jpeg is no painting or document). What to do now? Greetings.--78.53.92.157 (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

you clearly did not read what I wrote. It is not a 3-dimensional object other than in the sense that every object in the universe is necessarily 3-dimensional because it consists of atoms. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A relief is a 3-dimensional object in my understanding, probably my wrong understanding of a relief, picked in rocks. So Jameslwoodward wrote, we need a permission from the photographer or from livius.org. Probably it´s right, I don´t know. Every picture or photo is 2-dimensional. --92.224.220.247 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC) PS: A difficult question of interpretation: what about carpets or gobelins? I´m no lawyer, but what to do now about that picture, looking for a permission or waiting until that question is solved by all sites?--78.53.94.225 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, but I have explained something. For some reason you don't seem to be reacting to what I say at all. "three-dimensional" in this case means that it can be photographed from all angles. A statue can be depicted in profile, or frontal, or from behind. You cannot depict the Tigrakhauda from the front, or from behind, or from their right, you can only show them from the left, because the work of art is two dimensional. This means that reproducing their depiction is unoriginal and hence not protected by law. If there is a precedent case under Florida law that says otherwise I would be interested in seeing it, but until then I don't see why we should go around deleting images on commons that are perfectly legal. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I understood your opinion and interpretation and your anger about it. I don´t know, what´s the juridical definition of 3D, by angle of the viewer or by deepness of the artefact or whatever. But I´m not that user going aroud delinking pictures, I´m that person asking for a solution-somehow like a attaché ("You could certainly ask." ;). What to do now? Let´s "relink"? Best regards.--78.53.95.35 (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

what anger? I am merely making a point about copyright law. In the Anglo-Saxon legal world of precedent, it is safe to say that the copyright status of a bas-relief is unknown even to legal experts until there is a precedent case. The question is therefore political. Does wikipedia want to choose to delete content that is very possibly perfectly legal, simply because of a lack of precedent court verdict? I do not want to become involved in a wikidrama about this. But if anyone asks me, I will make clear my view that wikimedia should keep all content that can be reasonably assumed to be in the public domain, as long as nobody threatens to sue. The wikimedia board can still choose to take the prudent approach and remove content that is very possibly legal if somebody feels called to sumbit a cease and desist order. I know we have a bunch of self-important users who go around and construct far-fetched cases just so they can delete perfectly valid material on some trumped-up technicality. My opinion is that such users should not be humoured, and that WP:UCS should be applied to copyright questions. It is one thing to patrol uploads for blatant copyvios. It is quite another to be a wikidick about it. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a considerable amount of case law on this, with which I am not not familiar. But I understand that coins are held to be 3D in this context, so anything that can be described as a bas-relief certainly will be. Does that help? On the other hand paintings with heavy impasto are still regarded as 2D. The issue is the flatness of the surface(s) that makes up the work of art. A painting on a thick panel is still 2D, even though it can be photographed from the side. Images of paintings painted on both sides of a panel are 2D also. The point is the amount of skill needed, in lighting etc, to make a good photo, and whether "different" photos could be taken of the same work. There is a degree of nonsense about this, but that is the legal issue. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with Libya Article

Hi Dbachmann. I stumbled upon the main Libya article and was very disappointed with the presentation of the information about Libya under Gaddafi. As such, I went to the larger article on Libya under Gaddafi that you've made some major contributions to. I was wondering if you could take a look at the Libya article, specifically this section and perhaps summarize the very well-written larger article that you've contributed to. If not, no worries, but I thought it would be more efficient if someone already familiar with the subject matter jumped into this rather than myself, as I'm highly uneducated on the subject. Thanks for all of your great work!--Gnowor^T_C 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, dab. I've extended the above request to the wider community here. Still would greatly appreciate your contribution, if you have the time. Thanks!--Gnowor^T_C 22:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands of God

Glad to see you are still around! Do you know anything about this? Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am still ignoring my watchlist, and most of my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Maghreb edits

Would you mind explaining why you removed the following from the article during your edits?

Following Umayyad conquest of North Africa and Hispania, the term included Andalusia, Sicily, and Malta.

Cheers Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the whole of my edit? I am sure you can figure it out. Also, the claim that "Maghreb" referred to Malta or Sicily was technically unreferenced. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lutescan language

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this article which you tagged as a hoax long ago. It survived, but I suspect it still is a hoax, I just don't know enough about the subject to be entirely sure. (see article talk page for more details) --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your detective work. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth Coat of Arms (1649 to 1653)

The Coat of arms of the Commonwealth that I have depicted does in fact exist, although the image file is not thoroughly sourced, there are plenty of examples. I am hoping to create an article one day on it: Coat of arms of the Commonwealth of England (or something of the sort), but been a little busy lately. The scan of this book is the best source on all the insignia of the Commonwealth including standards and seals: 'Prestwich's Respublica' by Sir John Prestwich, 1787

• 
  On a coin circa 1653
• 
  Behind the Speaker's chair, trail of Charles I (trail occured in 1649) drawn in 1683

• Cover of a book by John Milton 1651
• Pub sign

With Scotland

• Arms of Scotland to be born with the Arms of this Commonwealth.

And that this Union may take its more full effect and intent, Be it further Ordained by the Authority aforesaid, That the Arms of Scotland, viz. a Cross, commonly called Saint Andrews Cross, be received into, and born from henceforth in the Arms of this Commonwealth, as a Badge of this Union; and that all the Publique Seals, Seals of Office, and Seals of Bodies Civil or Corporate, in Scotland, which heretofore carried the Arms of the Kings of Scotland, shall from henceforth in stead thereof, carry the Arms of this Commonwealth. British History Online

• Illustrated Manuscript, document from the Speaker of the House to the Ottoman Sultan in 1653
• Another example on a Naval Medal 1653

It was only until the establishment of the Protectorate, that Oliver Cromwell's personal and familial arms were incorporated into the National Arms. So please change some of the stuff back. Sodacan (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

you are right of course. I have also found out some references on my own by now. The problem is that we have many, many articles on former countries with unreferenced coat of arms, many of them simply made up without basis on any sort of reference. We need more skepticism with stuff displayed in infoboxes like that. --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed!, I promise I will be more thorough in the future with my images, putting in sources and better descriptions etc. It is just that after I upload them onto commons, I just couldn't be bothered to come back and add text on them. But If you would like we could collaborate on an article on the Great Seal and arms of the Commonwealth and possibly for the Protectorate too. It would be a shame to let all these sources go to waste. Sodacan (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Jiroft civilization

Hi, I was wondering if you have time to read some of these: [6]. I think the article can be greatly improved. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah, this is a fraud, further inflated online by the Iranian cyber-nationalists. As iranica.com puts it,

"For archeological accuracy the terms “Jiroft” or “Jiroft culture” [not to mention "Jiroft civilization"!] employed to define a specific ancient Iranian culture and its artifacts should only be cited within quotation marks. All the artifacts known to date that are accorded the Jiroft label have not been excavated; they have in fact been plundered.

Apparently, the person responsible for this depressing state of affairs is Yousef Majidzadeh. I have no inclination or leisure to embark on yet another merry-go-round with our resident teenage Iranian nationalist troll cloud. They want ancient Iran to be associated with puerile chauvinism, that's their problem. --dab (𒁳) 06:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not change the Armenia map again!

The map that will be used for the Armenia map has already be agreed upon after extensive discussion and census among the members that take care of that page. Do not go about changing the map again as it will be marked as vandalism and abuse. We already have moderators on the lookout for people like you who continue to change the map. People have already been warned for changing the map against the agreed upon consensus. The points have been made, and a Europe map is going to be used for Armenia. End of discussion. MosMusy (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol.

what the hell does that have to do with anything? Stick to the topic or else stop wasting my time and spamming the Armenia page.MosMusy (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia. Bring it on! (apologies, dab for taking up your talk page). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

this is a content dispute, isn't it? If so, use the article talkpage, as I did. I have reviewed such sources as have been presented, and the situation is unambiguous. If you have any new sources worth considering, just show them and they can be taken into account. If you want to contribute to this in any meaningful way, kindly address the issue. Quoting myself:

"On the encyclopedic side, we have the UN, the CIA Factbook and Oxford Reference Online all unambiguously placing Armenia in Asia. So, it's worldatlas.com vs the UN, the CIA and Oxford. I'll leave it as an exercise to do the WP:DUE appreciation of this."

Please only bother to reply to this if you have anything meaningful to add to this evaluation. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a political map. Armenia along with the rest of the South Caucasian countries are politicly Europe - Armenia belongs within the context of Europe not Middle East. That is why the maps of Georgia and Azerbaijan are within the context of Europe as well - Armenia is not different as it has the same political relationship with the EU and other European institutions. Stop trying to falsify information - you spam our page again you will be reported and I will not rest until its done. MosMusy (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mani being of Babylonian origin

In the articles on Mani and Manichaeism, one user is repeatedly removing reference to Mani having possible Babylonina/Assyrian background. I have added three sources for this on the talk page for Mani, can you suggest how these two articles can be fixed so they will reflect the accurate info (i.e. dual Persian/Babylonian background is likely)?Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Armenia map

Since I have been involved as a third party on the Armenia article before, I was approached today by User:MosMusy, and I have to admit that he is right about one thing. It was agreed after lengthy discussion on the talkpage that the map should be File:Europe-Armenia.svg. So whatever else you want to change, please do not change this without being able to show that consensus has changed after proper discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can claim such a thing seeing as I was involved in this very discussion since at least 2009. You cannot call an "agreement" if people just wait until nobody is looking and then claim there is a "consensus" without even pretending to address the debate that has gone before.

The way things are resolved on Wikipedia is that past consensus matters, even if the editors involved in previous debates aren't around at the moment. Otherwise things just go in circles forever. Sure, a consensus can be overturned, but only by being aware of what has been decided before. Simply boring the opposition away by being absolutely thick about ignoring the issue and then calling "consensus" as soon as anyone intelligent has left the building isn't very wikilike in my book. But of course I have seen it done many times, and I have also seen many "uninvolved editors" catching up by a quick glance at the current talkpage being fooled by this approach.

The thing is that I raised a coherent point about why User:MosMusy's position is untenable. I have raised the same points two years ago, but let that pass, I have raised them now, once again. So the least you would expect would be people honouring the point I am making.

Of course it is futile to pretend that this is even a "discussion" in any meaningful way, as MosMusy has no case whatsoever, which is of course why he resorts to wikidrama instead of addressing the point. Also nothing new, of course. But the important thing is that "uninvolved editors" need to flock to the support of those making a case based on references, instead of empowering those trying to get their way by wikilawyering. Since this is a very clear-cut case, I suppose it can serve as an instructive exampe of what I am talking about. --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Listen, the argument is simple. This is a political map. Armenia is politically Europe. Thus the map has to show Armenia in a European context, like for its other two similar neighbours (for which you don't change the map apparently). How many times I have to repeat myself. It's a simple reason. Stop creating an edit war on the Armenia page, everything was fine before you came with your uncalled for edits. MosMusy (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Armenia is politically Europe".

"The Republic of Armenia is a landlocked country in SW Asia" ("Armenia" World Encyclopedia. Philip's, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. (accessed 4 April 2011) www.oxfordreference.com)

It's as simple as that. I have never heard that Armenia is "politically" in Europe, let alone that it "is" Europe. You are perfectly free to cite your references for this. But you need to recognize that as things stand, there is no support for your opinion whatsoever. If you don't have any kind of quotable support for your political opinions, what are you even doing here? You would be much better off contributing to a forum or a blog. Read WP:ENC. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A. is transcontinental, but the most important is that europe map looks good, unlike your map with the worst colouring possible, you are just doing vandalism, the purpose of the map is to show a. location in the world, your low scale map is probably the worst for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.88.127 (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ffs, "A. is transcontinental". When will people learn that WP:CITE isn't just some decorative option? Armenia is not transcontinental. All our references say it is in SW Asia. Countries that are actually transcontinental are Turkey, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Georgia: no dispute there. If you want to argue that anyone worth mentioning ever referred to Armenia as "transcontinental", cite your sources. Even after you do, all you will ever be able to establish is that "some sources" (which???) refer to Armenia as "transcontinental". We already have a whole bunch of important publications that do not.

If this is just about the colouring of the map, for crying out loud, go and suggest an alternative. Accusing me of "vandalism" because you happen to dislike some colour chosen in a locator map is about as lame as wikipedia "disputes" become. No, it is not "the most important thing" that our articles "look good". The most important thing is that they are encyclopedic, informative and accurate. Once this is satisfied, design concerns may be considered as a nice extra. This is how it works, not the other way round. Again, kindly go and have a long look at WP:ENC.

Consider File:Europe Location Armenia.svg, or upload your own suggestion. Just stop pretending it is "vandalism" to object to a locator map which stashes the thing to be located in the bottom right corner. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

See my response on the Armenia discussion, and let's keep all the proposals, and discussion there. My proof that Armenia is politically Europe is on that page as well. Why don't you also change Azerbaijan's map? It is literally on the edge of the map, almost not showing. MosMusy (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Race and crime for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Race and crime is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)