User talk:Dbachmann

Archives:

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

hardest language

Someone claimed that this is original research. Would you agree? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laws_dr#hardest_language

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laws dr (talk • contribs)

since you are citing a source, it is not original research. Your source is "Arguelles, Alexander. January 12th, 2005. How to Learn any Language forum". Alexander Arguelles appears to satisfy our BLP criteria and would thus in principle tend to be quotable. The question is, does this source qualify for inclusion in this particular case. For this debate, use the article talkpage, or ask for more input at WP:RSN. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also someone took the Wexler study out. Could you make an argument and put it back in? --Laws dr (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim

Looks like most of the article made it's way here: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Ashida_Kim/id/1919838 --Nate ^t/_c 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so? That's just a Wikipedia mirror, and the article will disappear with the next update. --dab (𒁳) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also like his ED entry -- encyclopediadramatica.com/Ashida_Kim --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ginnungagap

Hi, dab. You recently made this edit to Ginnungagap with the summary "utter nonsense, this is not a translation, it is a gloss explaining what the word describes". I beg to differ. De Vries' analysis is of the etymology, not of the connotation, as noted in Simek (1995):

Etymologisch ist G[innungagap] schwer zu deuten; de Vries hat in einer ausführlichen Untersuchung gezeigt, dass G. wohl eher "der mit magischen (und schöpferischen) Kräften erfüllte Urraum" bedeutet als "die gähnende Kluft".

This is based on an analysis of gap as "space" and ginn- as "magical and creative force" (also found in ginn-heilagr and ginn-regin) rather than gin- ("yawn"). Thus, it is intended as a translation, not a gloss. If you think the article needs a section on etymology, fine. But why the removal as "utter nonsense"? --Aryaman (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologize for my mistake, and I obviously propose that the information is re-instated, ideally along witht the context you have just provided me with. I find this highly interesting, of course, and I would like to hear more about the proposed etymology of this supposed ginn "magical and creative force". --dab (𒁳) 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief but interesting presentation of the various major interpretations of the term to be found in volume 12 of the Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde (1998:118-123). Since you're genuinely interested, here's the relevant section:

Ginnungagap ist auf sehr unterschiedliche Weise erklärt worden. Wirft das Element gap keine grösseren Problemen auf - es handelt sich um ein Subst. Neutr., abgeleitet von dem Vb. gapa, mit der Grundbedeutung 'Öffnung', und bezeichnet eine 'gähnende Öffnung', (gähnender) Schlund'; eine 'Kluft' - so gilt dies nicht für das erste Element, ginninga: Vom Morphologischen her gesehen, kann es 1. dem Gen. Sing. (oder Pl.) eines mask. Appellativums ginnungi entsprechen, oder 2. dem Gen. Pl. eines mask. Appellativums ginnungr, oder 3. auch dem Gen. Pl. eines fem. Subst. ginnung.

Das Element ginnunga- ist seit Grimm zu dem Vb. gina, 'gähnen', in Beziehung gesetzt worden, so dass G[rimm] übersetzen wurde mit "Kluft der Klüfte", "Gaffen der Gähnungen"; "Schlund der Gähnungen", "gähnende Kluft", "eine weite öffnung von Klüften" usw. Mogk, der von dieser Etym. ausging, sah in dem Element Ginnunga- den Gen. eines Nomen proprium Ginnungi, das zu einem Adj. *ginnr gebildet sein sollte, dem er die Bedeutung "weithin unerfüllt" zuordnete; in dieser Hypothese wurde Ginnungi von Mogk als "die personification des leeren Weltenraumes" und G[innungagap] als "Klaffen des personifizierten leeren Weltenraumes" gedeutet.

Die zweite Erklärung von ginnunga- stellt dieses Kompositionsglied zum einen dem Präfix ginn- gegenüber, der in den eddischen Termini ginnheilagr und ginnregin belegt ist, zum anderen dem fem. Subst. ginnung, einer Parallelform zu ginning, 'Betörung'; nach dieser Hypothese wäre ginnunga ein Gen. Pl., der die Funktion eines die Intensität ausdrückenden Präfixes übernimmt, wie die norrönen Präfixe firna- und kynja-, so dass G[innungagap] die Bedeutung 'grosser Schlund' zukäme.

Diese Interpretation von ginnunga- befürwortet S. Nordal in seiner wichtigen kommentierten Ausg. der Völuspá. Obgleich de Vries der Ansicht war, dass diese Interpretation vom morphologischen Gesichtspunkt her "einwandfrei" wäre, meinte er, dass sie diesem myth. Namen nicht mehr also eine "blasse Bedeutung" velieh, so dass sie nicht zu befriedigen vermochte. In gleicher Weise wies er die von Mogk vorgeschlagen Interpretation zurück und stellte die zentral Frage: "Wie wäre da das Verhältnis zwischen diesem Urwesen Ginnungi und dem aus ihm hervorgehenden Urriesen Ýmir zu erklären?"

Die von de Vries vorgeschlagene Interpretation des Kompositionsgliedes ginnunga- in G[innungagap] stützte sich in erster Linie auf die Feststellung, dass es nicht möglich sei, das Wort von den Ausdrücken ginnregin und ginnheilagr zu trennen. Das Präfix ginn- fände sich "ausschliesslich in Wörtern mit einer unzweifelhaft sakralen Bedeutung", so dass es "eine religiöse Färbung" besitzen müsse. De Vries kam folglich zu der Schlussfolgerung, dass G[innungagap] "der mit magischen Kräften erfüllte Urraum" sei.

I don't have de Vries' original piece at hand right now, but I seem to recall it also discussing the otherwise unclear *ginn(an), as found in Md.E. begin, Md.G. beginnen. The link to "magical (and creative) force" follows over the interpretation of ginnung as "(magische) Betörung, ev. Sinnesblendung", as alluded to in the "Enchantment" or "Beguiling" of Gylfi (Gylfaginning) via the Aesir.

As for the article: I would agree that de Vries' interpretation was probably too prominent in the version prior to your edit, and there would need to be some differentiation regarding the various attempts that have been made. Regardless, "yawning gap" or something similar is - though perhaps somewhat antiquated - by far the most frequently encountered interpretation in the literature. Hope that helps. Cheers, --Aryaman (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran across a reference to the Stentoften Runestone inscription, which also contains the ginn- term, this time prefixed in the composition ginnu-runoz, which Rundata translates as "runes of power". Interesting stuff. --Aryaman (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's on the Björketorp Runestone as ginna-runaz, too. Both of these inscriptions date to sometime in the 6th or 7th century. And, btw, thank you for starting this. It is unlikely that I would have looked up these inscriptions otherwise. --Aryaman (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I will get back to this. For now I am looking to deal with the Swiss minaret thing. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV stuff

Dab, you might be interested in this CfD as it pertains to a point we discussed earlier. Also, Satbir Singh is back on the Kamboja fancruft as an IP, the IPs been blocked for a bit, but will need some watching over on the numerous content and POV forks for that series. -SpacemanSpiff 19:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True colors

At last we see your true colors...you are obviously part of an anti-penguin cabal !!! I demand a new policy that only TRUE penguins be allowed to edit Penguin-related articles! Anything else is insensitive and offensive to the penguin community. Doc Tropics 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have no idea. I loathe those filthy flightless pseudo-fowl bastards.[1] --dab (𒁳) 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known, another diabolical conspiracy perpetrated by Belgians! Thanks for pointing me to a great clip I'd never seen before. And more seriously, I'm curious about the Muhammad article; do you think FA quality is possible, or would "stability issues" preclude that? There are currently some major gaps in the references, but nothing that couldn't be resolved with access to a good library. I've often thought it a shame that such an important article isn't FA, it really deserves better. Doc Tropics 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minaret controversy in Switzerland

Hi Dbachmann. You have been around long enough and have the position to know better. Your edit replaced a sourced line with one that was flagged. The Amnesty Intl one might be too POV but a line from BBC is certainly better than a citation needed flag. This was also brought up on the talk page a few hours ago. Also, was that a revert or did you enter edit without hitting undue? It seemed weird that your edit summary was "rv" instead of the automated undue summary (maybe I am looking into too far). Just a little feedback. If you feel like reverting my revert we can talk about it on the talk page without me reverting again.Cptnono (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just love these "You have been around long enough and have the position to know better" comments. I have been around long enough to know to take article disputes to article talkpages, and I have fully justified my edit there. It was the "flagging" of the line that was unjustified, as I have pointed out at length on talk. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be smarmy here or in your edit summary. You could instead defuse the situation by making appropriate edit summaries. "See the ref a few lines down" is much better than "Do I need to attach the same footnote to every punctuation mark to make you check the reference?" (yes you do when someone else has flagged it and your removal did not provide an adequate edit summary). So yes, you should know better. Don't take constructive criticism as an offence especially if you have had enough similar comments that you respond by saying you love them. Live and learn.

What you pointed out in talk was your interpretation of the system. I have responded on the talk page and asked you to clarify the foreign language source.Cptnono (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to "defuse" any "situation" that may arise by stoically sticking to the actual topic. No, I do not accept your proposition that every phrase in an article must be footnoted just because people refuse to actually check out the content of the references given. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page discussion

Hi Dbachmann!

I just received a message from FleetCommand (talk · contribs) regarding an edit of yours to a DAB page. If you would like to read the conversation, and perhaps give your 2c, it's right at the bottom of my talk page. Regards, decltype (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbachmann

This is FleetCommand (talk · contribs). I'd like to apologize for the inconvenience that my message on Decltype (talk · contribs) page has caused. I didn't intend to tell you off. I just wanted to learn how to discuss the matter in a civic way from an administrator, since I assumed administrators to be extremely civic and the model of Wikipedians in term of behavior.

I am going to refrain from editing the DAB page in question in the future. Please feel free to edit that page without my disturbance.

Again, I apologize for the inconvenience that I unwittingly caused.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, I apologize if my revert seemed harsh. A revert need not be the beginning of a revert war, it should initiate a constructive, iterative process towards compromise (WP:BRD). I do invite you to enter such a debate with me, and I assure you I will consider any point you make in good faith. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I won't touch the article again. But here are some tips. If you wish, use them. If not... well...

Consider Capitalizing the first letter of the title. For example, instead of "in literature, film and drama", consider using "In literature, film and drama"
Consider describing "Black sheep" as an idiom, not an expression. The word "expression" is too general and can mean a Math Expression, a Regular Expression (computing) or simply a phrase.
Use as little piping as possible. For instance, [[The Black Sheep (novel)|''La Rabouilleuse'']] is equal to ''[[La Rabouilleuse]]'', so use the latter instead of the former. Something like [[Silence (Sonata Arctica album)|Silence]] is OK but please avoid something like [[Baa Baa Black Sheep (TV series)|Marine Attack Squadron]].


Do not create groups with only one members. Such groups only cause wordiness. Merge these groups into other groups or move them into "See Also" section.
"Kara Koyunlu" and "Marine Attack Squadron 214" are both military factions. Consider grouping them together. Don't let the fact that a Marine Attack Squadron looks more fashionable and sleek than a medieval tribe distract you. Within half a century from now on, both will be equally looked upon as ancient out-fashioned warring factions.


Fleet Command (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]