User talk:Dbachmann

This is Dbachmann's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

Archives:

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

Marie-Rose

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

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

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

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

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

User:JeanVinelorde

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yoga

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

User:Oghuz turkish

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

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

AE

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

Movses Khorenatsi

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

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

Armenian transliteration

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

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

Oghuz turkish

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

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

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

Reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hellenic languages

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

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

?

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

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

User:JeanVinelorde

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient history

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

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

Map

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

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

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

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

re: Assyrian page move

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

Moses of Choren

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fertile Crescent

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

Hindu-Arabic numeral system etc.

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

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

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

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

Dharmacakra

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

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

Ásatrúarfélagið

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

Subhash Kak

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

Another sock

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

noinclude tags

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

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

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

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

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

Armenian origins

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

Etruscan origins

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

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

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

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

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

Editing Barnstar

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

Exciting news...yawn

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

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

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

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supriyya

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

Ron Wyatt

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish inventions and discoveries

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

Occupation of the Baltic states

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

Elamite cuneiform

Hey dab,

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

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

Kurdish people

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

template:lang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New findings

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

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

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

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

You're on Jimbo's talk page!

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

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