User talk:Dbachmann

---

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

---

P.Oxy. III 466

This one's lovely. Get it on DYK! :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it too. I'm still looking for a full transcription. dab (𒁳) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Geir Smith/Sandbox

I have declined your speedy. It's not a copy of an external website. It's a copy of Battle of Baghdad (1258). Are you sure your tag was the correct reason? _GB^T/C 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but nevertheless I don't think it's patent nonsense (ie. gibberish) particularly since we allow a fair bit more latitude in userspage than in the main articlespace. I've put a {{userpage}} on it to make it clear it's not a real article. If you wish to try another speedy then from what you say {{db-copyvio}} may be more appropriate, but I cannot immediately see the text alleged to be copied from the site you cite. If you can find the original location of the text then by all means tag it again. Thanks! _GB^T/C 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. dab (𒁳) 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this seems to be a copy of Battle of Baghdad (1258) before my deep revert. rudra (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

the point is, Geir Smith appears to be abusing Wikipedia user namespace to host his hilarious nonsense about (unsure if this catches its drift) a Tibetan Buddhist world conspiracy dating back to the Mongol invasions. Yes we are lenient about stuff kept in user space. There is still WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. And if that doesn't apply here I must seriously wonder where it might. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What is it about Tibetan Buddhism that invites flights of fancy? rudra (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to take more decisive action against this guy (see my report at WP:FTN). He's been on Wikipedia since 2005 but he still doesn't get the basic rules.--Folantin (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

he seems comparatively harmless so far. But, since apparently The Kingdom of Shambhala was declared on February 1st, 2008 we may now see more activity. Which will no doubt get him banned in due time. These individual kooks aren't a problem. The Wikipedia system only gets into trouble when crackpot views gather a wider following, typically for religious or nationalist reasons. dab (𒁳) 10:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He's a smart guy though and he rumbled us pretty quickly. I mean, the only reason we would want to delete that material is because we're part of an evil Catholic-Hindu alliance, right? (See this off-site chatter for further details [1]. Plus that really does contain off-wiki canvassing to edit the article). --Folantin (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to grok this. It's fascinating. I think that this guy is serious. I do assume we are looking at the genuine article, a 53 year old US-born textbook kook now residing in France, who has recently founded "The Kalachakra-Shambhala Kingdom" which "covers the world over and is based upon morality. It can be visited in its center which is at 5, rue du bout de la ville. 27180 Les Ventes. France.[2] It extends the whole of a thousand meter garden, a four-room house and a library-living room that has many books." (which I must add I would be delighted to visit). A for his obsession with the Mongol invasions, as far as I can gather, it seems the point is that the Ilkhanate was secretly a Tibetan Buddhist empire (Arghun-Kalachakra, secret King-Deity of full worldwide Mongol Empire that is the mystery of the Shambhala Kingdom), with Arghun being the Messiah. you got to love bits like

• It is curious that the history of Arghun has inspired a modern gaming program on Internet for children, "Highlander", and the same qualities as those of the Shambhala King are also attributed to him in it.
• one thus has to search among History's kingships for the clue to Messiahhood. Arghun or Ghazan? "Both and neither" is maybe the best answer.
• How are the Mongols with their defect-riddled clan, the hope the glimmer of hope that is the divine intervention, that they are universally seen as, by all four major religions? How are they diversely: 1. God, 2. the diety 3. messianic 4. the Messiah? ... Baghdad was thus the turning-point of Humanity, because with it, the rule of one's self had reached its climax, while against this, the Mongols gory career was nevertheless dominated by a redeeming quality of Redemption.
• These mythological figures, of Shambhala and Arghun, thus act as messengers come to avenge the dead, seven hundred some years later, and bringing the living to face up and confess, by mercilessly facing them up to their dues and past debt. ... Both figures, biding their time through history, they await the time of bringing to justice each and every one

This is apparently some sort of pop religion inspired by "Highlander", and Mr. Geir appears to be chosen to finally reveal the "Immortals" to us and bring us to judgement. And Wikipedia has been honoured to be his vehicle of revelation. I am a bit reluctant to block this chap, since I've come to really enjoy this sort of thing :) dab (𒁳) 11:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Too bad our boy Hulagu Khan was an old-style Turko-Mongol "pagan" (i.e. a follower of Tengri, like Genghis Khan) for most of his life, despite having strong Christian connections (wife, mother too I think) and going for Buddhism only in old age. Was that when the Grand Unified Buddhist Ilkhanate Conspiracy recruited him? rudra (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"I've come to really enjoy this sort of thing". I see your point. It's far more exciting than the "friends of gays" vandalism we usually get. The guy lives in France but he doesn't necessarily like the French much [3]. Let's hope his new-found friend Docteur Faustroll doesn't find out. --Folantin (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

it's also more interesting than the same old nationalist nonsense ("Aryans are indiginous Indians", "Where are your Ancient sources say Armenians are not Mitanni", "Albanians are ancient Illyrians from Illyria", "Assyrian genes are original Mesopotamic race", "Macedonians are Hellenic race", "Ancient Egypt was a Black civilization and proud of it", "The Netherlands are the soil of the original Aryans") -- that sort of stuff is parroted by unimaginative dullard losers. But for the Geir Smith variety of crackpottery, you need to have the brain of a visionary. dab (𒁳) 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist nonsense like that is only amusing in the hands of true experts, like Johannes Goropius Becanus. Sadly, he died centuries before the invention of Wikipedia but his spirit lives on among us. --Folantin (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

too true. Many of our most notorious customers positively scream "16th century". Especially the more far out Indian ones (User:Vinay Jha appeared to be a positive 21st century John Dee). For those of us grown up in the industrialized West, it is difficult to grasp how large parts of the world are still steeped in a pre-Enlightenment mindset. In this sense, the process of education kick-started by Wikipedia really cuts two ways. dab (𒁳) 14:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Heros

Re: this edit The usual way to deal with unreferenced articles (or stubs) is through the Talk page, tagging {{unreferenced}}, or, eventually nominating it for deletion. You have a long history here, though, and probably already know this. If the article does meet consensus for deletion, I'd recommend making a redirect to the Heroes (disambiguation) rather than repeating the effort. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

the verbatim content of your stub is already at Paleo-Balkanic mythology. At this point you are only duplicating content under an unsuitable title. dab (𒁳) 08:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you have duplicated the content by copying it from Heros to Paleo-Balkanic mythology. How is "Heros" and unsuitable title for an article about Heros? Please reach consensus before deleting the stub. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

the "duplication" was the result of a process also known as {{merge}}ing, plus your revert. Instead of harping on the concept of consensus, how about you just tell me what you want? what is the problem with the merger? dab (𒁳) 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ȣ

I see you have a history of working on the article Ȣ. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

um, it's a unicode codepoint. I suppose it is notable even just as such. We can simply cite the Unicode standard to begin with. dab (𒁳) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've done so.--BirgitteSB 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings

On 29 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Kosovo geography stubs

Hi DB - I've deleted the Kosovo geography stubs category you made as a re-creation of a previous deletion. Stub categories are only created once there are sufficient stubs to warrant their existence. Kosovo, like several other countries, does not yet have enough geography stubs to warrant a separate category, and as such its stubs are upmerged into other categories. If you want to propose that this category is recreated, then please do so at WP:WSS/P, but until there are enough stubs, it is very unlikely to happen. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you are right that it concerns some 30 stubs. That is exactly my point - the threshold for separate stub categories is 60 stubs. I suggest you check how many other countries currently have some 30 odd geography stubs but no separate geography category. Sure, we will eventually need such a category, and when we do, it will be created. At present we do not need it, nor is there anything to be gained by having it (quite the opposite, in fact). I advise you to check the rationale behind the creation of separate stub categories before accusing me of poor judgement in this matter. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

fine, fine. I recognize that after this edit of yours, the situation is resolved satisfactorily. dab (𒁳) 14:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Allah

Could you please reply to my comment regarding the typography section in the article. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Syriac-Aramean people

Can you please give me a good motivation why removing the page Syriac-Aramean people and redirect it to Western Syriacs. You dont know the background, and the terms, you are just moving articles without any background information. Western Syriacs are a group that counts in all assyrians, chaldeans, and syriac-arameans from an specific area. The Syriac-Aramean group does not belong to the assyrians or the chaldeans. VegardNorman (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of the background. See Names of Syriac Christians. What you mean is Syriac-Aramaic identity, which already has an article. This is a boring topic of petty ethnic nationalism, and I assure you, we have been over it many times before. dab (𒁳) 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Syriacs are an ethnic group, that has all right for an article in wikipedia. Like there is an article about the assyrians, kurds, armenians, their should be an article about the syriacs (arameans). VegardNorman (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

you do not listen. Syriacs are an ethnic group indeed, their article is at Assyrian people: the article lead plainly says "also called Syriacs". We do not create seperate articles for synonyms. You want to suggest a {{move}} of Assyrian people to some other title. You are welcome to do that. You are not welcome to create erratic content forks. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That proofs how unintelligent you are in that area. Syriacs counts them self as syriacs, but people like EliasAlucard counts them as Assyrians, wich is very wrong. Syriacs (Arameans) got their own history and culture, language and religion. I have already been discussing this matter with another Assyrian-Chaldean wikipedians, and we came to an agreement of creating a article about the people, who has been living in TurAbdin for 2000 years (The article Assyrian poeple is threating the assyrians in Iraq), should have their own article VegardNorman (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, ok? I've tried to talk sense to you. "That proofs how unintelligent you are in that area" is exactly the sort of thing I used to be told by Elias as well, who, strangely enough, held the position exactly opposed to yours. Wikipedia doesn't work by telling people they are "wrong". You want to move one of the existing articles, do a proper proposal. Unless you do that, you'll just run into WP:3RR, and acheive nothing. This is the way Wikipedia works. You want to stick around and have an effect, you better familiarize yourself with the system. dab (𒁳) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to do this. Article Syriac-Aramaic identity, Western Syriacs should be one article -> Syriac-Aramean people. What do you think VegardNorman (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's a possibility. I suggest you begin by merging Syriac-Aramaic identity into Western Syriacs. Then you should place a {{move}} template on Talk:Western Syriacs and wait for comments. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

done VegardNorman (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see you're not very fond of nationalism, to use an understatement, neither am I. But to label ethnic identities as ethnic nationalism, is one bridge too far, I believe. People can be convinced about their heritage and cherish that, without demanding a polity of their own. Suppose the Rumantschs identify with the Raetians, that would not turn them into nationalists, would it? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure you got this right. There is nothing wrong with ethnic identity of course. But all this noise about identifying with this or that Bronze Age people is just national mysticism and has nothing to do with bona fide ethnic identity. This is as if the Rumantsch people were bashing their heads in over a dispute on whether they are "really" Raetians or Romans. The ethnic identity of these people is defined by their speaking Aramaic, and by their being Christian (in the midst of the Islamic world). They used to bicker about finer points of Christology (Nestorians vs. Jacobites), and recently, it appears, Christology has become too uncool or too complicated for angry young men to identify with, so they tend to opt for bickering about identification with Bronze Age peoples known from archaeology only. dab (𒁳) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe all ethnic/national identities are based upon myths, but that doesn't make the ethnic groups/nations unreal. Neither does that turn people who identify with such a myth into nationalists, which is a political stance that implies the demand for an own state (or at least a part of that). Identification with an ancient people, whether it's real or not, is not quite a Blut und Boden ideology. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

May I add to that that I have the impression that among the Syriacs, the Assyrians in general tend to be more nationalistic than the Aramaeans, who came to stress their heritage (be it perceived or not) more explicitly as a reaction to Assyrianism. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why removing the article

why did you remove the whole text in the article Syriac-Aramean people ? VegardNorman (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose he did it because it is the sort of thing Dbachmann likes doing. That only a day earlier you had informed him that you had proposed merging the western Syriacs entry with this now-removed one, just makes his lack of care all the more revealing. All the Syriac/Suriani/Assyrian/whatever articles are a mess, and Dbachmann has a lot to do with it. I used the words "mess" and "whatever" because the whole purpose of an encyclopedia article seems to be lost sight of - after reading the various related articles, I am not much clearer in knowing which is the correct term to use and which term refers to which region or people or religious group - and Dbachmann's constant belittling of issues involving ethnicity and his never-disguised scorn of what he calls "nationalism" does not help matters. Meowy 02:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems w/ Ahrensburg "culture" article & Geo-Genetics

Hi DBachmann;

I know you and the administrators are busy w/ things (dare I say outright chaos!) but Addhoc referred me to you for a problem I've had in the past that you've apparently dealt w/ under similar circumstances. Essentially, I've been noticing that genetic info based on modern populations has been surfacing in archaeological and various other articles (linguistic, physical anthropological etc.) in a manner that is pretty much flat out POV or hasn't any real relevance to the topics. Case in point is the problem I had w/ the Ahrensburg "culture" article. Basically there is now a genetics section based on studies of modern populations that doesn't have any firm links to the culture in question. On my personal TALK page I'm trying to build a consensus regarding the proper use of this info and get a broader discussion, range of opinions, etc. I suspect you may be familiar w/ that discussion already but but if you are not could you please visit the Ahrensburg culture article and its discussion page, glance over it (again?) and tell me what you think on my discussion page if you havn't already. As usual any insight or advice on how to build a consensus towards the use of this data is greatly welcomed. Thanks.

Geog1 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

Ok I notice that there is some silence on this issue. Is this a sign that we're saying its ok to throw this info around in such a matter even though its very preliminary and doesn't really match up always that well w/ the archaeological and even the linguistic record OR is it just too damn complicated and messed up as it is to really do anything about it OR something else?

Geog1 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

Cooperation board

I invite you to Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board. Dab, as you see in the talk page of Assyrian genocide, I have rebuffed every arguement Verard has made on the move, so can you please move it back, because I seem to do so. Chaldean (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to move back the Assyrian genocide page. Chaldean (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:India

Only just noticed your post there and perfunctorily replied there as well. The way I remember it is that all sorts of "constituencies and views" were being accommodated and counter-balanced in that particular choice of words, cheesy as it sounds now. Will come up with something better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Camptown (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pottery

I know the pottery is 14th century and the names are archaic.[4].The link on my page just had a wrong title and i didn't misinterpret anything.A person watching it would simply hear it.Megistias (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

cool. So they found a 7th to 6th century BC inscription of a personal name in Macedonia. And there was much rejoicing. As long as it isn't ostensibly in XMK, I fail to see the relevance to anything. dab (𒁳) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism

Also what you write on the prehistoric balkans article on epirotes and macedonians is what only the nationalists from albania and fyrom say.And you go against all sources to support such a claim.Abuse of admin power on a whim.Megistias (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

nonsense. You might perhaps find me supporting Albanian nationalism when I am simultaneously too drunk to stand up, lovesick, and stoned out of my mind. I assure you that none of these conditions apply at this point in time. dab (𒁳) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you are not supporting any sort of nationalism but you unintentionally are.Why are you ignoring my sources? Just so you know you don't know what i truly am and anything would be irrelevant only the sources matter.Megistias (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

what do you want? I am not "ignoring your sources". I have no problem with the possibility that XMK may have been some strange dialect of NW Greek. I even personally think it is quite likely. What I object to is your attempt to portray academic speculations on Early Iron Age dialectology as dead certain facts, and your implication that said speculations are of any relevance to modern questions of nationhood or identity. dab (𒁳) 06:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh!? I never mixed modern identity with the issue?!Who gives a whatever about today. Borza & Hammond states the Epirus & Macedon were ancient Greeks.You are ignoring them even now.There is no consensus on hellenisation of the 4th century bc.Sources say epirus was proto greek and macedon as well.Megistias (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to your nice email, which seems to indicate this isn't a purely academic question for you. Don't bother writing me just to rant at me. I am not ignoring your source. So Borza & Hammond say Epirotes and Macedonians spoke Greek. Duly noted. Anything else? dab (𒁳) 10:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since its duly noted take it into account along with other sources.Megistias (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

my discussion

you did not answer me on my discussion. VegardNorman (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sakaldwipiya History et al

{{Sakaldwipiya}}

Hi Dab, If you have the time/interest, can you take a look at these series of articles ?

• Sakaldwipiya History
• Sakaldwipiya
• Shakdvipa

The titles of the listed references and the combination of Bhavishya Purana, Mahabharata and the Bible make me suspect that these are related to fringe pseudo-history (and as such may well deserve to have articles on wikipedia), but I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to separate kernels of wheat from the chaff. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

sigh, I see this will be difficult to sort out. Another brahmin documenting his own cherished gotra in epic length. These articles are essays, not horrible at that, but it will be almost impossible to verify what is actually in the sources, what should stay but not be presented in Wikipedia's voice, and what should go as WP:SYN. The constant reference to the (Biblical?) Magi certainly sets off bullshit alarms. It turns out there was an existing artice at Shakadvipi, which was turned into a redirect to the new one. But the article is in excellent shape compared to what we usually get in this sector. dab (𒁳) 06:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

looking through it, it seems pretty much ok. Just some general edits adjusting tone, grammar, formatting etc. is needed, the articles are surprisingly well referenced. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review, Dab! If the content is more-or-less reliable and reliably sourced, the stylistic improvements and wikification can always be handled by wikignomes (like me) who need not have a deep knowledge of the subject itself. I'll give the article another (less skeptical) read. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

my praise was somewhat premature. I see there is a lot of offtopic nonsense in there. But at least it's easy to spot. (such as, a bibliography on Wicca at Sakaldwipiya History). There is some value in there, but all the tangents about magicians in general can just go. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Etruscan Chariot 530BC.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Etruscan Chariot 530BC.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Faraz Ahmad.jpeg

I deleted the image because I believe it to be a copyright violation. User:Farazilu claims to be the creator of the work, but lists sources such as YouTube and some blogs. I am willing to bet that User:Farazilu does not own the copyright to this image as claimed, which means ne cannot release the image under GFDL. The image would not survive a fair use claim because it is replaceable as the subject is still alive. -Regards Nv8200p talk 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Image restored and marked as a possibly unfree image. -Regards Nv8200p talk 13:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble locating which article(s) this image was in. If you know, could you please return the image to the proper article(s). -Thanks Nv8200p talk 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Check discussion

Check the discussion in article Syriac-Aramean people. VegardNorman (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Check discussion at [5] VegardNorman (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

re Image:Islam-by-country-smooth.png

You have French Guiana colored black in this, but since it is part of France, it should have the same color as France, just as Alaska would have the same color as the lower 48. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject:Celts invite

	You are invited to participate in WikiProject Celts, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Celts.
	You may sign up at the project members page.

I know your expertise is extremely wide-ranging, but this is one area where it could be useful! Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously very passionate and knowledgeable about all this, so join up and help ensure this takes a positive scholarly direction! I promise we'll have a better chance of avoiding the pitfalls you mentioned once you do. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

let's just say I am very much aware of the dynamics these "ethnic" things take on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is necessary to get all shifted to Wikiproject Celtic studies, do we need to ask an admin or fire up a bot? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion?

Without any discussion you start moving articles, using terms that are hardly in use anymore, and are considered pejorative by many ... I thought we were going to do this after thorough discussion. You require others to show source, whereas you go ahead moving and editing without either sourcing or discussing. You might be an admin, but you should also abide by the rules. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be, you can't just go around moving articles without prior discussion or research. Neither Jacobite nor Nestorian is in use nowadays, and considered pejorative. Compare it with calling Muslims "Mohammedans".

We are still discussing this matter. Let's first reach consensus, and then start moving some things around. These problems have been lingering on for months if not years, we don't need to rush, certainly not into pejorative terms. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with calling Muslims "Mohammedans". It's a neutral term for the religious doctrine they follow. Anyway, I will be happy to accept the term is outdated if you could only cite some sources. Our default position should be Britannica 1911. Which is certainly outdated, but at least it is respectable and notable. If you have respectable sources dating to after 1911, we can certainly build on them too. Please understand that my edits are a reaction to the general lack of sources. I am thus not pushing original research, I am re-instating a neutral reflection of our lack of research. dab (𒁳) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For the term Nestorian: S.P. Brock, "The Nestorian Church: A Lamentable Misnomer," in Bulletin John Rylands Library 78:3 (1996), pp. 23-35.

I understand your urge for sources, but how are your recent moves endorsed by sources, I wander? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

well, the articles used to claim "Western/Eastern Syriacs" was synonymous to "Jacobite/Nestorian". No source. The adherents.com numbers given applied to the latter. So, I have moved the articles to comply with the source given (adherents.com, viz. articles about a religious denomination), and I have removed the unsourced claim that these groups are identical with alleged "Western" or "Eastern Syriacs". "Western" and "Eastern Syriac" appears to me to refer to West Syrian Rite and East Syrian Rite, and I have placed disambiguation notes accordingly. I understand "Nestorian" is a "misnomer", but until we have some preferable synonym, I suppose we are stuck with it. dab (𒁳) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How can yo claim Sabistian Brock to be a neutral source? He has publicly converted to Syriac Orthodox Church. Chaldean (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Kosovo-stub and Template:Kosovo-bio-stub

{{uw-3rr}} --Camptown (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have kindly asked you to stop posting template messages to my talkpage. You are trolling. dab (𒁳) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2RR

Per my decision at the AN3 noticeboard, you are now only allowed to make two reversions to an article within a 24 hour period before having to stop. I'm hoping to have you and the other editor in question stop pushing back in forth; instead, please use this time to develop consensus on issues you disagree on. Thanks, and please reply on my talk page so I can be sure you've received this. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

replied to user's talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR board is for resolving editing disputes, which is why I've invoked 2RR, in the hopes of fixing this dispute. ANI and ARBCOM aren't necessary for things like this. Instead of imposing a block, I'm imposing a temporary measure to stop you from editing disruptively. If you'd like, I can state the case at ANI, but I don't think that is necessary. I actually did look at the case, and I think it is just a standard edit dispute, which would benefit from some time to cool off.

Now, when I say this, please know that I mean no offence. However, how long you've been on Wikipedia doesn't mean you are automatically more experienced. There is no seniority on a project like this; that's fundamentally against everything we're trying to acheive, which is a level playing ground where everyone is the same and can edit in harmony, instead of a class of elitist veterans ruling over the helpless noobs. I'll review Camptown's contributions very thoroughly, but please stick to 2RR in the meantime. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Master of Puppets, there's little I can see on wikipedia that empowers you to make a "decision" like that. You didn't define time or scope on WP:AN3, though I see here you've refined this as "temporary" now. If you believe you can do this, I'd request you seek counsel for this on ANI. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

it is possible for admins to impose special restrictions by community consensus. Admins can act either on WP:BLOCK, WP:DISRUPT. They cannot just "invoke 2RR" (I've never even heard of "WP:2RR"), certainly not based on a 3RR report (a bogus one at that). Before admins come up with customized restrictions, they need to consider the case, with some intelligence. MoP has clearly done no such thing. He sees reverts and "imposes 2RR", never mind that the dispute was clearly one of "pro-NPOV-policy" vs. "pro-Albanian-nationalism". Which side, do you think, should any Wikipedian, including any Wikipedia admin, take? This is not a dispute of a Serbian nationalist vs. an Albanian nationalist. It is a "dispute" of a veteran Wikipedia NPOV-fascist vs. an Albanian nationalist. Enough said. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about who's right and who isn't the fact is that you were just blindly reverting each other without any pause. Also, I'm not imposing an indefinite rule, but rather just a temporary thing to try to get people to compromise, not edit war. You're right that ARBCOM or ANI would be needed for this if it was indefinite, but in this case all I'm going for is a few days so that everyone can discuss the matter and be happy. If you'd like, I'll take it up at ANI. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

no on both counts. The reverting was not done "blindly", it was in my case coherently argued on talk as establishing NPOV. There is a huge difference between a revert accompanied by a coherent explanation, and a revert based on pure WP:ILIKEIT. No, you are also not within your rights to just make up policies as you go along. People usually cry "admin abuse" over far less. dab (𒁳) 10:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They do indeed. Thought this an interesting topic, Dbachmann, and raised it as a question for the nominee at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DeadEyeArrow. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that I'm trying to help you two reach a compromise without inheriting a bias. You guys were edit-warring (against policy); two experienced contributors should know not to do that. Yes, you didn't technically break 3RR, but you don't have to break it for it to be edit warring, and I'm not willing to see two editors dance around multiple articles fighting over each one for two or three edits before finding another battleground. All I was hoping to do was keep you guys contained without any article protection or blocks. I apologize if you feel I've overstepped my bounds. Also, please don't take this to be an endorsement of Camptown or something. I'm trying to stop further damage, not favour any editors.

On another note, I think I'm going to bring up a proposal about actions like this WT:BAN. I don't want to hide anything from you, after all. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that MoP was just trying to help you out with this (admittedly unusual) 2RR. While it is true that this is not something that is normally done, MoP didn't block you both outright, which he certainly would be justified in doing to stop an edit war, even if there is no 3RR violation. Instead he choose to give you some leeway. I would consider him to not literally be saying, from now on you can never make three reverts again, but rather, if you continue, and make more reverts (he specifies 2, for whatever reason) you may be blocked. It really isn't a ban, more of a warning, if seen in this context. Prodego ^talk 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I said that MoP would be justified in blocking to stop an edit war, I said nothing specific about this particular situation. To be clear, I have no opinion on whether this "2RR" is justified, just that it is probably not against policy in general, so long as it is considered a warning. As for your talk page, I unprotected it because it is against policy to have it protected (WP:PPol is the protection policy, not a proposal). A "wikilike approach", as you put it, would be to immediately take an action, since it can always be undone, in a true wiki, there would be no admins, and anyone could do anything of their own accord. As such, seeing that semi-protection is not permitted for a long term period on user talk pages, and that yours was protected for nearly a year, there is almost no valid excuse for leaving it protected. Therefore I unprotected it. Do you have a reason for the protection that you would have raised if I had contacted you first, that you can't raise now? Or one you can raise now for that matter? Prodego ^talk 17:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I see nothing in Dbachmann's behavior that justifies this "2RR warning", particularly not one so poorly designed. Does it apply to every article? Is there any expiration date? Hopefully MoP will rescind this warning; but if he doesn't see fit to do so, I strongly recommend that he post to WP:ANI before issuing any block under this restriction, because I doubt there would be consensus for such a block. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus: Edit warring is edit warring. To be frank, someone of dab's stature and experience should know better than to edit war. And no, this 2RR was meant to apply for the short term for all controversial edits. In other words, for a limited period it was my intention that they may not insert potentially controversial material. I think that the time has come for the restriction to end, though. Really, it was just my attempt at getting them to stop clashing over multiple articles, without me having to issue blocks and/or protect multiple pages (the latter did happen, but I feared they'd find new places to fight on). Hopefully some useful consensus has come out of this; if there hasn't, then hopefully they won't edit war further until they do reach a compromise. And I'm reasonably sure that reporting to ANI isn't necessary to block for edit warring. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 16:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Edit warring is edit warring" -- you still haven't bothered to build a judgement informed by the actual issue, have you. This is what I call "armchair admining". Not helpful. Your condescension isn't appreciated either. MoP: you need to meditate on your approach here. You may block people for 3RRvio without considering any context. That's the whole point of the 3RR. You may also block people for blatant vandalism of the "penis penis penis" type. You may not idly "block people for edit-warring" on a whim, without bothering to look at context, past debates, policy concerns, etc., using your human good judgement, unless the 3RR has been broken. This is why we elect human admins instead of just letting a small shell script do the blocking. You do not want to look into the Kosovo issue? You are welcome to come back and slap me if I do break the 3RR, or if you catch me inserting "penis penis" in article space: there is no shame in focussing on such "menial" admin tasks. Just, do not confuse the menial tasks with those that need judgement and intelligence. In the meantime, I will thank you for not taking up any more of my time. dab (𒁳) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking at the actual issue. Even though I was born in the region I'm fairly separated from Balkan political messes. The point of this isn't to "armchair admin", but instead to stay neutral. I'm sorry if I come across as condescending, but that's the polar opposite of what I'm trying to get across. Again, yes, edit-warring is blockable (WP:EW); 3RR is just a technical guideline, but you don't have to break it to be edit warring. And if Camptown makes a blatantly wrong edit, you revert, and he puts it back, then that's all fine and good; don't keep reverting. Instead, just report the issue. It's better to tell people before you've already fought back and forth over at least two articles. Hopefully, this is clear enough for you to understand; I've lifted whatever restrictions though, and apologize for taking up your very valuable time. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian-related

Why do you refuse to reply to key issues I keep bringing up? Do you not have an answer for them? Chaldean (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I answered you about five times over. I think the problem is that you don't understand what I am saying. I am sorry. Try to use a dictionary, and try to consult the sources cited. You may also ask Benne for help: he is perfectly able to understand what I am saying, and he is capable of citing his soutces in a meaningful way. Learn to do the same or find some other online activity. dab (𒁳) 09:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Where have you answered my question of where and how have you proven there is a more common name other then Assyrian used in the English language? Please show me where. Also, how have you justified the term Syrian Nestorians when there is only 300 hits and all talking about ancient times? Shoe me where you have answered that. How have you gathered this conclusion that Assyrian is only a reference to members of ACOE? Of course you haven't answered any of my question because you seem to think your above the law and don't need to negotiate. Answer these questions and I will give you the rest. Chaldean (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

you are not making sense. I am asking you for sources for the definition of a group such as "Eastern Assyrians", not of "Assyrians/Syriacs" in general. I have no interest in "debating" on such an exasperatingly low level. Again, talk to Benne please. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to redirect the point? You were ready to move the Assyrian people page and I am asking you under what grounds did you make that decision? Or do you not want to discuss Chaldean (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Syrian Jacobites????

Are you kidding me? Please, go do some research before you create a page like Syrian Jacobites. The churchs and the people refuses and dont use that name. VegardNorman (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

the encyclopedias do. Less qestion marks, less hysteria, more citing of sources please. This is an encyclopedia, not your private homepage. You want to edit content, you cite encyclopedic sources like everyone else. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you first provide evidence that the term Jacobite is still in use? As far as I know, only a couple of churches in India use that name. I don't consider adherents.com a reliable source, and the source they use is also false: the head of the Syriac Orthodox Church is not in Iraq, but in Syria. Interesting to note, however, that that same source states that the name Jacobite was given by opponents of Jacob Baradaeaus (which suggests that the name was not used by the church itself). --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: the misnomer refers to the Syriac Orthodox, whereas the article is about the West Syriacs, which include Syriac Catholics and a few Protestants. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

well, I did place a merge tag on Western Syriacs. My position is the following: The "Eastern" (Jacobite) and "Western" (Nestorian) articles need to be merged into the main Assyrian people article due to insufficient referencing. The Assyrian people articles needs to be moved to Syriac/Assyrian people vel sim., because the ethnonym is obviously a matter of dispute. Then a situation will be achieved that is actually in line with such sources as we have. Then we can discuss creating sub-articles of "Eastern" vs. "Western" groups provided satisfactory sources are produced. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Assyrian people articles needs to be moved to Syriac/Assyrian people vel sim., because the ethnonym is obviously a matter of dispute - You still didn't answer my question. We are aware the ethnonum is a matter of dispute and that is why we created an article solely to discuss this issue ([Names of Syriac Christians]].) You have preached of using the most common term used in the English Language and I am asking you again; where and how have you proven that the Syriac name is as equally used as the Assyrian name? Because that is what a Syriac/Assyrian people title would mean right? That they are equally used in the English language. So how have you proven this? Chaldean (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

let's make this simple: the articles Western Syriacs (Syriac-Aramaean people) and Eastern Syriacs do not have sufficient sources. They need to be merged into Assyrian people for now. Then we can discuss the ideal name of that article. It can remain at "Assyrian people", or it can be moved to "Syriac/Assyrian" or whatever, that's secondary. The main point is that we do only one article per ethnic group. dab (𒁳) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

~:::: 'only one article per ethnic group. Well in this case, there is one about the assyrians and one about the syriacs/arameans. Both groups consider them selfs as a ethnic group. one group consider them selfs as descendants to arameans, and the other group consider them selfs as assyrians. You cant unite two groups, if they got different flags, different names and most important of all, a different history. VegardNorman (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

VegardNorman, cite your sources making these two ethnic groups. There is one group: The Assyrians, also known as Syriacs, speaking Aramaic (or "Aramaean" if you insist). If you disagree, let's see some source backing you up. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab you continue to not answer my question, but thats ok. So let me get this straight; if we only change the Syriac-Aramean people's template from ethnic one to a religous one (Green) then you dont have a problem anymore? Chaldean (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, nobody calls themsleves Syriac-Aramean, but simply Aramean. The reason I disgouraged Vegard from using Aramean people alone, is because it would have been too contreversial. The page was created to talk about this group of people who do not identify themselves as Assyrian, but rather simply Aramean. Remember that only a minority within the Syriac Orthodox have this view, and they mostly live in Northern Europe (which I think needs to be mentioned in the beginning of the page.) Chaldean (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

but the point is: "Aramaeans" is another name for the same group. We cannot have two articles on the same group just because there are two names for it. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab is not just another name. They believe they are different from the rest. Chaldean (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab you should be the one who should cite his source since your the one doing the addition.

also called Syriacs, Syriac Christians, Suryoye, Aramaeans, partly also Chaldeans see names of Syriac Christians subgroups include "Chaldeans", "Jacobites" and "[[Eastern Assyrians|Nestorians]

Where is your source that says all these names are equally used with the Assyrian name in todays time? (with the exception of Syriac and Chaldean of course.) Chaldean (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

you are not making sense. Do you have some older brother who can communicate coherently in English perhaps? Or anyone else I can talk to? dab (𒁳) 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What part cite your sources don't you understand? Cite your sources that all these dubious different names are equally used to refer to this group. Chaldean (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

cute. now you just copy-paste my complaints back at me? I thought only teenage Hindutvavadis did this sort of thing. Nationalism must be like being in love, all higher brain functions shutting down? My source, incidentially, would be e.g. the US census. See any "Arameans" headcount in the US census? No? That's because they fall under "Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans". I don't care what you call yourself. This is your pathetic mess. Just don't take it out on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I am asking you to cite a source that Arameans is equally used as Assyrian to refer to this group. If you cant cite that, then it should be removed from the beginning of the sentence of the article. Simple as that. Chaldean (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you found the sources yet? Chaldean (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

see Names of Syriac Christians. We describe this whole sad mess of puerile ethnic infighting there. dab (𒁳) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Where in that page does it say Aramean is equally used to Assyrian in the English language? Please can you point that out? Chaldean (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tyrrhenians

The Greek-Etruscan bilingual inscription at Delphi that you noted in the article is still without a citation. I have finally commented it out while we continue to wait for one. --Wetman (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I forgot about this. It is of course alright to remove this pending citation. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Pranava Veda Translation Project

Did you notice this dab??? http://www.aumscience.com/pranavaveda.html BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"7000 BC" is bogus of course, but once such a "translation" is published, we can naturally discuss it on the Mamuni Mayan article. They say "in the mid 1980s, the only known copy of Pranava Veda was found in Tamil Nadu". It would be interesting to know if this text has been edited anywhere. If it has, did it receive any scholarly attention? It will either be a modern fake, or possibly a medieval Tamil text (like the Sanskrit Puranas, proposing to be a gazillion years old). Until something is published, we don't have anything to report one way or the other. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there is a handful of google books hits. [6] [7]: the claim of the existence of a primeval "Pranava Veda" is apparently found in the Shilpa Shastras. It that is correct, we know at least where this wild goose chase originates. dab (𒁳) 13:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"wild goose chase originates" well well.. yesterday there was nothing... today.. there is something... it is said that at the end of Kaliyuga this book will come before everybody..... Unfortunately wikipedia's standards does not allow such locally printed books to be brought to day light, or I would have taken some efforts to unearth those writing for you all. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I really pity for wiki that it's policies currently does not allow it to publish all these local sayings which I knew.. already :).... well.. I now understand how all these works.... and it's next to impossible for you guys to publish them before hand.... BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

sure - the internet is wide. Wikipedia is just a website. You can publish your wisdom in many many other places. dab (𒁳) 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Syriac/Assyrians

Chaldean

Since you now deleted everytring i wrote in that article, what are you gonna do about your proposal Syriac/Assyrian people ? VegardNorman (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I do propose we move Assyrian people to Assyrian/Syriac people (which is, you will note, already a redirect. You can validly link to Assyrian/Syriac people right now). Already for compatibility with Assyrians/Syriacs in Germany etc. The slash is a nod to the de facto dispute surrounding the name. This needs to be discussed at Talk:Assyrian people. dab (𒁳) 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats not going to happen, so do you have another idea to fix this mess you have created? Chaldean (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

we are getting there. If you stop trolling this topic, we can arrive at a reasonable solution within a day. Again, as soon as you cite decent sources, I will be happy to be informed by them. By "trolling" I mean ignoring what few sources we have and raising a big stink based on nothing but your own predilections. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

During this whole mess you dab have still haven't provided your sources to show that anything other then Assyrian is equally used in the English language. Until you can do this, then this isn't even an issue. Assyrian is an ethnicity dab, not just an identity. and it really seems that "Assyrians/Syriacs" is the best bet we have at present. if your going to do that, then your obligated to also Chaldean and Aramean. Go ahead and move it to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/Aramean. Where do we draw the line? Assyrian is the most common term used in the English language. Again, cite and prove otherwise, then this can acutally be an issue. Chaldean (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

you still haven't looked at signifié/signifiant, have you. I am well aware that Assyrian is the term for an ethnicity. There are other terms in use for the same ethnicity, such as Aramaean or Syriac. US authorities saw fit to opt for "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" in order to be rid of bickering by the likes of you. This may be where we are going, although the shorter Assyrians/Syriacs seems satisfactory (and is in use on Wikipedia already, e.g. in the title Assyrians/Syriacs in Syria, Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden etc. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Satisfactory to who? You? The Assyrian/Syriacs in Syria page has just been recently moved, without even disuccing it. I admnitted that this was an issue in Northern Europe only and that was way I moved the Assyrians/Syriacs in Holland page. Please know this; if you can't cite your source that anything other then Assyrian is equal or more used to refer to the group, then you don't have any strong grounds to move the Assyrian people page. Also, please refraim from removing massive amont of sourced information, just because you think its off-topic. Chaldean (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. I agree "Assyrians" is a common term for the group. "Assyrians/Syriacs" still puts it first, and the slash simply indicates that there are other terminological preferences in existence. Where is the problem? It's not as if anyone was trying to move Assyrian people to Aramaean people? Regarding "off-topic", see WP:SYN. The article Names of Syriac Christians is ostensibly about names of Syriac Christians. It is patently unclear why we should discuss academic questions of Early Iron Age history on that page. dab (𒁳) 14:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You continue to be misinformed. The article of the naming dispute what created to talk about the backround of each name since the existence of these people. The title of the page was decided on the bases of being most neutral, not on the grounds of talking only about the Christian-era of these people.

"Assyrians/Syriacs" still puts it first, and the slash simply indicates that there are other terminological preferences in existence. - there are other ternomologies for every single ethnic group. Show me another ethnic group page on Wikipedia that uses /. By your idiology, we should move the Greek people page to Greek/Hellenic people. Again, you continue to create more problems then actually slove them. I awknolged there is an issue and that is why we created the naming disupte page. But to spill this issue on all these other pages is making things ever worse. Whats next move the Assyrian genocide page? Change every sngle Assyrian reference on wikipedia is slashes? Chaldean (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

except the Greeks don't make fools of themselves in the Greek/Hellenic matter the way you people do. If you can cite a national census listing a "Greek/Hellenic" group, we can discuss this at Talk:Greeks. Well, Chaldean, who was killed in the Assyrian genocide? Was it only people insisting they were "Assyrian", or were there other victims, perhaps considering themselves "Syrian", "Syriac" or "Aramaean"? I really don't give a rat's ass about all this. I note something is disputed and look for a solution within WP:NPOV. You, otoh, are clearly party in this dispute, and all you keep doing is spamming me with your subjective position. Take Benne as an example. He may also be involved, but at least he has the brains to abstract from his personal views and submit to Wikipedia policy. To answer your question: yes, I suspect this matter is so far removed from any amicable solution that there may be no way around adopting an ugly "slash" solution. I do not like the prospect myself, but I can hardly be blamed that the Syriacs are the one ethnicity on the face of the planet who cannot decide what they would like to be called. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you dab for calling my people fools, but I will ignore it and continue try to work with you. I have replied to your answer that you provided to my qeustion (and then removed it.) I hope you reply back. Chaldean (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are really incapable of distinguishing your own person from your ethnicity, aren't you. I certainly do not hope you are a typical example, but no, I wouldn't dream of calling an entire ethnic group "fools" summarily. Every nation has its fools. In the Syriac case, the fools concentrate on bickering about naming issues and the Bronze Age, but I certainly do suppose that's just the lunatic fringe. Hey, we have complete morons in my country. They don't hate each others guts because they identify as Helvetii vs. Raetians or something, but that just means they find some other idiocy to indulge in.dab (𒁳) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You said and I quote matter the way you people do. - how is you people a reference to just me? Your hatred is clear here and you should take it back. Chaldean (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel no hatred at all, but I do feel occasional exasperation with your dedication to ignoratio elenchi. With "you people" I certainly do not refer to 3 million Syriacs, I refer to a half dozen pov pushers plaguing Wikipedia talkpages. I certainly do assume by default that the majority of the 3 to 4 million Syriacs are perfectly sane, reasonable and likeable people, same as any other group taken at random. dab (𒁳) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Benne

For now I can live with a move to "Assyrians/Syriacs", but I don't think we should blindly follow national censuses when it comes to determining article names, since the categories are determined by the state and the people concerned are often left not much choice. (See my remark concerning the Australian census.) There should in my opinion be uniformity in article naming.

In the long run, I believe there should be three separate articles for Syriacs (common article), Assyrians, and Aramaeans. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. I have exactly the same misgivings. Our problem is that this group is very poorly documented in recent literature. Designations in censuses are by no means ideal sources, but they happen to be the best we have at present. There are detailed discussions in dated encyclopedias (1910s Britannica and Catholic Encyclopedia), but I am aware these are outdated of course, and they mostly focus on details of rite and Christological doctrine, which I feel are not very central to the current generation of Syriac/Assyrian expatriate patriots. Uniformity in article naming is indeed important, and it really seems that "Assyrians/Syriacs" is the best bet we have at present. The problem is that "Assyrian" is used both for the entire group (by unsuspecting outsiders) and for the Assyrian nationalists in particular. We should probably have separate articles for the "Assyrian identity" and for the "Aramaean identity", i.e. on the ideologies themselves, not alleged "ethnic groups" embracing these ideologies. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Source on International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST)

Hi! I am trying to locate the origin of IAST. Sure it evolved from various individual (and related) transliteration schemes, but I would like to know who standardized this scheme and gave it the title IAST (and when?). You once noted that the Congress of Orientalists standardized IAST in 1912 at Athens, but I have their Bulletin here with me and IAST seems to be already well established and is not at all referred to in the proceedings. Could you also tell me what sources I should consult to confirm the Congress of Orientalists-origin. shashir 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

oh dear. I must have taken the 1912 congress reference from somewhere, but I didn't actually verify it because it seemed plausible enough. I am afraid I do not know where to find this information at present, but I'll make a mental note to be on the lookout. thanks, --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for eavesdropping, but check this out:

"Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal", Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1896 p. 120-121

which has a short note on the "Report of the committee on transliteration" of the 10th International Congress of Orientalist at Geneva (3rd to the 12th,September, 1894). The committee arrived at a transliteration scheme for Sanskrit and Pali, which on a cursory glance looks like IAST to me (see page 121)- although that term is not used in the report. Wonder if this is the origin of IAST, rather than the 1912 congress ... Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks like it! I will locate the 10th Congress proceedings and confirm! shashir 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashir (talk • contribs)

the Assyrian nomenclature conundrum

Likewise, can you provide a source which states that the Chaldean subgroup does not refer to the entire Assyrian population as Chaldeans? I can provide a quote from Hormuzd Rassam whereby he referred to Assyrians by the name "Chaldean", and even addressed the name confusion as of the late 1800's. Although it is outdated, it is a source, if you would like to see it :) --Šarukinu (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. If Hormuzd Rassam has used "Chaldean" for the entire group, we should be all means note this, alongside the equally obsolete "Syrians", but not in the article lead, since it is not a synonym in current usage. Please be aware of (and read) the Names of Syriac Christians article, where we have collected such sources as we have. Note the 1910 quote we have there, stating that

"Chaldean would suit admirably; but it is put out of court by the fact that in modern use it means only those members of the Church in question who have abandoned their old fold for the Roman obedience"

i.e. "Chaldean" was obsolete as a term for the entire group at least since the early 1900s, because the term had come to refer to Chaldean Catholics exclusively. You have not answered my question as to on what grounds you claim that "Aramaeans" refers to a subgroup. How is this alleged subgroup defined? dab (𒁳) 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be in the lead. And it was way back in the days of yore when "Chaldean" was used to refer to all of Iraq's Christian population. Here's my logic behind removing "Aramaean": the usage of this term is of a minscule scale when compared to the usage of "Assyrian" and "Syriac", even when compared to the Chaldean subgroup. It is a more recent move which begain in the late 20th century, and is restricted in its usage by members of the Syrian Orthodox Church. The fact that proponents of aramnahraim.org and a few thousand in the diaspora refer to all of Mesopotamia's Christians as Aramaeans does not suffice to qualify "Aramaean" as a legitimate term on par with Assyrian and Syriac. There is at least a significant amount of agreement between the two latter terms across all denominations, whereas "Aramaean" is scarcely agreed upon, if at all, by all Assyrians. --Šarukinu (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out (again) that identification with the ancient Aramaeans did not begin in the 20th century, but has been extant among the Syriacs throughout their history, also in the East Syriac tradition. Please check out Urhoy, which is perfectly sourced. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not dispute this at all. It still needs to be kept separate from a discussion of permissible terms for the group in contemporary, notable, English language sources. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Moksha language

It appears that Moksha is a Finnic language spoken (also) in Siberia. However, you deleted Finnic from the Indigenous peoples of Siberia article. Were you mistaken, or is Moksha not an indigenous language? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

you may be right. However, note how most of the regions mentioned in the article are not in Siberia. This would need some further research. I would be pleased to have you helping with this article. Already so we can get a break from this unpleasant Assyrian stuff. dab (𒁳) 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And the legions of Palmyra shall descend upon you, and lo! they shall be wroth.

WP:AN/I#Dbachmann. Relata refero (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

how is this an "incident"? What happened to notifying people if you have an issue with them? Or to (gasp) acutally participating in discussing an issue on the relevant talkpages? dab (𒁳) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a good thing this went to ANI, since it made the problem widely known. I am now watching Assyrian people and Names of Syriac Christians. That's all I am doing for now because it's still way too confusing for me. Perhaps I will try to make a table summarising the major POVs to help me get an idea of what's going on. Then all the major protagonists can cooperate in bashing me for getting important details wrong. Should be good for creating a group identity, but this will take some time. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

well, I am often myself tempted to tout problem articles at ANI, but this is simply not what that noticeboard is for. The real problem is that nobody reacts to RFCs any more. I would certainly welcome you dedicating some attention to this, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac) which is intended as the kind of "introduction" to the problem you are looking for. I am peeved because the people forum-shopping at ANI always go ad hominem, trying to portray my efforts towards neutrality as "admin abuse" and what not. Looking into this, you will see that my position is exactly as yours, I am an outsider with no stakes in this. I simply happen to have invested the time needed to grok the problem so that I am now interested in fixing the problem and enforce encyclopedicity and neutrality. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I had already looked at the pages you mention, but I still need more time. By the way, are you aware of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard? If you ever want to renew the attention to these articles, that or WP:AN might be better options than ANI. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not as a rule go forum shopping with problem articles, because in my experience the resonance is seldom worth it. But I do feel that bogus reports to WP:ANI should be more consistently moved to WP:POVN. A report of the current goings on could have made in good faith to WP:POVN. The report to ANI that was actually made had little to do with good faith. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I dare say the effect was the same anyway since most admins are perfectly capable of seeing the wider picture. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Archaeoastronomy

dab

If I can draw you back to an old issue, I've recently added a new section to Archaeoastronomy that relates to the article you started on Archaeoastronomy and Vedic chronology. I'd appreciate it if you could look over the paragraph on the Indian material in the light of the refs you've read.

Thanks. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource calls

We have two candidates for CU on Wikisource, and we need to accumulate 25 votes in favour in order to be approved. While I am one of the candidates, I dont mind whether you vote for or against me; this note is just to ensure that you know that as you are a serious contributor to Wikisource, and we dont have many, your input is desirable at this stage. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the note. I'll look into it. dab (𒁳) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sword-skeleton theory

Sword-skeleton theory has been nominated for RfD. Please see the discussion here. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hallur

Hallur looks like your specialty, see Talk:Hallur.--Berig (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)