User talk:Dbachmann

generic {{talkheader}}:

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. currently unprotected, courtesy of AuburnPilot (talk · contribs). 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 June 2008 (UTC)

---

re:automated Wikiproject tagging

Hello, Dbachmann. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A question regarding Sayana and Madhava

Hello, Dbachmann. You have new messages at Talk:Sayana.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ethnicity

i am glad to hear it! If you are not taking it personally, and don't find my comment especially interesting or useful, then you need not comment on it! Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian population

Hello dab, sorry to bother you, but I would like to know where you came up with these numbers for the Assyrian peoples population; "Iraq+ Syria ca. 0.5-2.5 million", the 2.5 million is way to high, and when I wanted to discuss them user:Chaldean said that it was you who came up with those numbers. This was the ref [1]. Thank you. The TriZ (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet's Mill

Any particular reason you commented out that Puhvel quote? --Gwern (contribs) 01:00 6 June 2008 (GMT)

the reason is WP:SYN: the passage tried to scrape a point out of a completely unrelated discussion in the source quoted. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow; one of the main criticisms of the articles was that the authors were relying heavily on wrong, coincidental, or tenuous linguistic similarities and etymologies - which is exactly what that quote pithily summarized. --Gwern (contribs) 02:37 7 June 2008 (GMT)

Merge article

Can you please merge Thuya into Tjuyu please? The merge tags have been on both articles since December 2007. Its a repeat article on the same person but the Tjuyu article is more substantial. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

why didn't you do it yourself? --dab (𒁳) 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought only Admins could merge articles preferably after a long discussion. But the merge tag had been on both articles for 6 long months and nothing was happening. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians

Could you please join the discussion at Talk: Egyptians\Religions, names? Certain editors are insisting on including Ancient Egyptian in the intro autonym and infobox language sections.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Stereographic Projection Northern Hemisphere.png

An image that you uploaded, Image:Stereographic Projection Northern Hemisphere.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vinhtantran (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mannaz

Hi, dab. Regarding your quick reposting of the merge tag on the Mannaz page. I removed the tag because of consensus reflected on the Runic studies talk page. If you oppose, that does not help against the majority, please front your opinions on the correct page to seek a compromise. I would appreciate it a lot if you did not revert my edits when I have given very valid reasoning for my actions. I would rather prefer that you posted a message on my talk page telling that you disagree, instead of making an edit that could, in some cases, lead to an edit war. As I dislike heated articles and discussions, I will not revert your edit before we have talked this through. Have a good day, –Skadinaujo T•C 11:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is nearly a week since I posted the message above, and I would be happy to get an answer. Refraining from answering does not get rid of the issue. I will remove the tags without further conversation if you choose not to respond, I am fine with that. Qui tacet consentire videtur. –Skadinaujo T•C 14:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Patricianship

ie Patricians, but not the Roman ones. Any additions on the Swiss patrician classes very welcome, especially the nitty-gritty on how the constitutions which recognised a patrican class worked - or on anything else in the article. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Stereographic Projection Northern Hemisphere.png

The image had been tagged as a copyright violation, and looking at the site it appeared to be a copyrighted image. Sorry for the mistake; I've restored the image and given it a more descriptive PD tag. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your view is requested

I was referred to you by User:Wikidas. Please take a look at my complaint about fringe theories and undue weight at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.

My original explanation to Wikidas was as follows:

Could you please take the time to look at Kalki? It is currently (in his own words) guarded by Ghostexorcist. And I don't have the experience to know how to make changes that don't get reverted. These are my concerns about it. See if you agree.

1. An inordinate portion of the article is devoted to subjects tangential to the Hindu concept under the heading "Modern variations of the Kalki prophecy." I think this title itself is a contradiction in terms. What modern variation of the prophesy is there in Hinduism? It might read "modern interpretations" but Ghostexorcist will not allow even this to be discussed.
2. The way the section is put together it gives the impression that the views of one author Savitri Devi Mukherji that Adolf Hitler was Kalki is a part of Hindu thought. By excluding other similar silly notions he puts un-due focus to that one idea, making Hinduism look morally baron.
3. By having this Nazi allusion follow directly after Alejandro Biondini, a Nazi in Argentina, Ghostexorcist is de facto insisting on giving the Kalki concept a nazi connotation and I can't understand his motive.
4. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight holds that Wikipedia is not a repository for opinions that almost no one holds - such as that Hitler was Kalki - a view that apparently a single Hindu author who is now dead had. By insisting on having this rare opinion kept highlighted he gives the impression this is a genuine Hindu view by not saying it is not. This seems a clear case of "undue weight" as defined by Wikipedia.

What I was hoping is that you might know one or two experienced editors like yourself that could bring some weight to bear on that article. As it is it goes nowhere as all serious changes are reverted by Ghostexorcist who says he guards the article. Thank you for your time.

I have already replied at WP:FTN. I don't know about Alejandro Biondini, I have doubts about his notability too. I think you misunderstand WP:UNDUE: it does not state that "Wikipedia is not a repository for opinions that almost no one holds". For example, nobody believes in a flat Earth, and yet the topic still makes for a fascinating article. See also WP:TIGERS. Nobody here, I hope, believes that "Hitler was Kalki". It may still be interesting to document the idea, if sufficient notability can be established. A notion does not need to be widely held to be notable, otherwise most of our mythology articles would need to go. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I see I may have misunderstood the policty. It should be called "Non-notable fringe theories." (: But thank you for your attention and clean-up. I think it is much better. I half expect Ghostexorcist to immediately put back Alejandro Biondini. But thank you for trying. Vedantahindu (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I never received an alert that my edits were being discussed on the fringe theory board. However, having learned of it, I have posted a few comments. Thank you for your comments concerning my edits. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming dispute

Would you care to explain the reason for your proposed merge or do you just plan to stick a template on the page? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to British Isles naming dispute. The reason is in my edit summary: {{Duplication}}. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you'll see, from other contributors, that your reasoning is not well understood. Perhaps more than an edit summary is needed. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed on how to create a disambiguation page

Bireme I think really should be a redirect to Galley#Biremes and Triremes, but on the page it says "

For the institutional acronym, see Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information.

" so I don't know what to do about that. Do you agree and how do I do it? Thanks,sorry if this is a pain. Doug Weller (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You should use {{redirect}} on Galley. You will get "Bireme" redirects here. For other uses, see Bireme (disambiguation). --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Iron pillar of Delhi

This page claims that the pillar formerly "served an important astronomical function". What's your opinion? --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A matter of {{tone}} (and {{fact}}), I'd say. dab (𒁳) 11:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So would I. Have you seen our page about Jiroft civilization? One has to be a crackpot to take that stuff seriously. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on decrankifying the page! By the way, there's also an alleged Zayandeh River Civilization. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I've prodded it. --dab (𒁳) 20:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New World Encyclopedia

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article New World Encyclopedia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly I'm a fascist

Is Linguistics on your watchlist? If not, it should be... things are getting amusing there. —Angr 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics, communication, and what amoebas call masturbation

This kind of discussion (for want of a better word) will go on forever if we let it. Should we continue to feed it? garik (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 16 June, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Constitution of Kosovo, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

- BanyanTree 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Majeston

He continues to call editors vandals in edit summaries,[2] what's your advice? Ignore him, or? Thanks. One other question--what do you think about using the phrase 'scholarly consensus' in a lead (I'm thinking of the [Walam Olum] article where it is pretty clear a scholarly consensus has developed since 1994). Doug Weller (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"scholarly consensus" is a term often used in Wikipedia talkpage discussions. We need to avoid letting Wiki jargon seep into article space. If there is indeed a scholarly consensus, we can just state it in Wikipedia's voice, since this is what Wikipedia is built to reflect. If there is only a majority view, we can say "widely accepted" or "majority view". That we refer to scholarly discussion should be clear anyway (Wikipedia reports scholarly debate, not newsgroups chat, of course. Any non-scholarly "consensus" wouldn't even be worth mentioning. Majeston's edit warring should just be reverted. If there are enough sane editors, he will just keep running into 3RR. --dab (𒁳) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pro-American

I have nominated Pro-American, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-American. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nudve (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RajivLal (talk · contribs)

I know he has no case, but the sheer effort of reverting incessantly is tiresome. He will persistently assert that he has a case to create the appearence of debate. I've created a sockpuppet case, but of course he will just reappear in another persona asap. I don't know how to deal with this unrelentingly single-minded editing. Anyway, I'm off to Birmingham now. Paul B (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We have WP:3RR precisely for this kind of people. If they can't accept they have no case, they can just be reverted. They run into the 3RR, and the more childlish type will then create sockpuppets, be found out, and be blocked, case closed. A small percentage actually wisens up and plays by the rules. These cases really should solve themselves one way or the other. Have a safe journey. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I admire your optimism. The case was closed two months ago [3]. Remember this? [4]. But he's so far still getting his way. (train delayed!) Paul B (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I was convinced RajivLal was Thileepanmathivanan (talk · contribs) I'd indef ban him without further ado. I can see Rajiv's first edit is suspicious[5], but are we sure it's the same guy? Maybe run another checkuser? If this is just another sock, this will become another "Ararat arev" case (revert-ban the next sock on sight until the troll gets bored). I can't see this is worse than the Armenian trolling, and that didn't do any damage in the long term. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys - I too have been following Rajivlal aka Padan aka DWhiskaZ with increasing frustration (his edit wars, his obsession with linking Mohammad to the Bhavishya Purana), and frustrated not least of all to discover that he has such a long, long history of sockpuppetry (see here for instance). Surely in extremely obvious cases like this there must be something more that can be done.Jak68 (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

dab, why isnt it possible to ban User:Padan for sockpuppeting as Rajivlal (which Paul Barrow noted the evidence for in his report, especially the tag team editing by the two on the Bhavishya purana page and others) and for being linked with DwhiskaZ (DWhiskaZ who WAS banned; and who also edited the same pages (the Bhavishya Purana page in particular), also originated from Univ of Toronto, and also spread the same message on the same article pages using the same sources (in both cases that of the ahmadiyya activist Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, whose fringe theory Padan/Rajivlal has inserted in 2 dozen articles so far and continues to do so.) Note also that User:Padan/Rajivlal has since "edited" another dozen articles (mostly inserting meaningless things like blank lines) in order to give the impression of diversity in his contribs, so now you have to go back into the history of the contribs to see the meaningful (and insistent edit wars) over the Bhavishya, which no doubt he will return to again as he had in the past. Jak68 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am confident socks and master will be banned soon. There is an ANI thread and a checkuser request, and there will be results soon, no worries. dab (𒁳) 17:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi dab - fyi, rajivlal is continuing to freely edit the bhavishya purana page. I dont know what the timeline is like for the ANI and checkuser etc, but can you look into the status of this case? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak68 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism

Further information: oldest religion

I'm sorry for crossing your opinion Dab, but I don't see how my reinstating sources lead to the inevitable outcome of you placing a tag that is completely unjustified. Lets wait for the opinion of a third party before you place the tags. Trips (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I got an encyclopedia, a book specifically written on Hinduism, a primary source used by encyclopedias like Britannica, and national Geographic is reputed. The Bush analogy is totally irrelevant as these are as good sources as are required to support a very likely statement, and I'm not relying on popular opinion here.

Certainly some religions in remote areas are older, however Hinduism has survived the Semitic wave unlike the vast majority of these indigenous religions, and its worth noting that it is certainly 'one' of the oldest continuosly practiced religions. I don't see any scope for error here and its not an issue. The Vedas form the core of Hinduism, and if you reject the Vedas, you are not Hindu even today. The Vedas can be dated and therefore it is possible to judge Hinduisms age relative to other religions. Trips (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

what "Semitic wave"? You are not making sense. Please appreciate the points made. The Age of the Vedas dates Vedism, not Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 16:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If your alternative account is User:Relata refero, then damn you do a lot of editing, take a breather once in a while Dieter. Probably User:Rudrasharman too aye. Trips (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think Relata refero or Rudrasharman are my socks, I suggest you switch on your brain, or else make my day and submit a checkuser request. It is sad, rather, that users defending Wikipedia core policy have become so rare that they appear to be acting in unison or as meatpuppets of one another. OMG cabal!. The cabal keep a positive homepage up for everyone to see, the cheek! --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Im pretty sure of it, even through WP, you can make out personalities and editing styles that are the same. Its likely you use three accounts with different watchlists for each. Hilarious how you awarded yourself a barnstar though. Trips (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I deny all accusations. Please proceed to WP:RCU. dab (𒁳) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Supriyya again

I thought you might be interested to know that she's back, and now seems to be trying to turn the linguistics section of the language article into a rival to the linguistics article. #sigh# I'm too busy today to do anything much about it. garik (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image format

Do you know any format by which I can place the production of cigarettes graph at the end of the Effectiveness section in the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. I want to use the image at the end of the section, otherwise there remains a huge blank space. I tried to use <br></br> , but that results in a blank space between two paragraphs. I do not have enough skill on this, a change in the layout may improve the style. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to do exactly. If you omit the "thumb", the image will be inline,

there is also "gallery",

• 
  Production of cigarettes in Germany from 1932 to 1944.

--dab (𒁳) 11:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dwaraka Kingdom

This page claims that the kingdom was "founded over 5,000 years ago" as "the brainchild of Krishna" and that "the ruins of ancient Dwaraka city were found under the sea following recent oceanographic studies". Your expertise is needed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

why is my expertise needed? It seems redundant to note that this is pure blatant nonsense. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your expertise is needed because in anything touching on India, when I see a ludicrous claim, I don't know how to change it for the better. It's the same with Tumulus culture (which I think looks rather strange) and Corded Ware culture (which cites the kurganization theory as "obsolete"). When I know what changes should be made I don't bother you. This is the case with Tyushtya. Still, I think you should take a look at the page if you want to have a good laugh tonight. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

the question was rhetorical :) thanks for drawing my attention to this stuff. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Race of Ancient Egyptians

An RfC has begun for this article and I noticed that you may have some interest in this topic so I thought that I'd let you know. Thanks.--Woland (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reshep

Help! Dear Dbachman, Can you please sort out the major template clutter in the Reshep article? One of the 2 templates has to go but I don't which is more important. You would.

BTW, the final sentence at the bottom of this article states that "It is speculated that the character of Reshep is connected both to the Greek Apollo and to the Vedic Rudra" with a citation question mark attached. Unless there is evidence here, it may be someone's fringe/original theory and perhaps be deleted. You may know more on Reshep who seems to be a god in several places of the Near East. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Dbachman for your cleanup of Reshep. I didn't know which template was more important and what information was legitimate and what was fringe on this deity. It was the worst example of template clutter, I've ever seen. Reshep was a very complicated article with many different incarnations in various parts of the Ancient Near East. Thanks also for the footnotes. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

your edits

I suggest that you stick with the areas of your expertise, which is possibly extensive, instead of insisting on editing the articles on religion. It appears you have some strange views on religion, especially some forms of religion like for example Hinduism, which are complex subjects that are hard for people with little or no knowledge to comprehend. For these reasons a little knowledge is not much good, and is worst then no knowledge, and for you its better to stick closer to good sources, so that you will not come across as OR synthesizer. Wikidās ॐ 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

strange indeed. Lucky that I tend to back up my claims with academic references. You should do the same. You have created some decent articles on Hindu topics. If you can lay of the pious zeal and the antiquity-frenzy bullshit, your contributions can be useful. It is amusing to be called a "OR synthesizer" by someone who googles "oldest religion" and then gives an incoherent list on soundbites, never mind if it's "Hinduism for Dummies", hindutva.org, or the eminent Mr. Klostermaier. dab (𒁳) 20:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Apepi

Dear Dbachman, Could you please rename the article titled Apepi I to simply Apepi. There was only one Hyksos king Apepi/Apophis and he was succeeded directly by Khamudi, the last king of the Hyksos 15th dynasty. I tried to move it and gave this reasons "There was only one king Apepi/Apophis. He used 3 different prenomens in his reign: Auserre, Aqenenre and Nebkhepeshre" I gave academic citations for this claim. The move from Apepi I to Apepi was rejected and it suggested I contact an Admin. I am trying to change the title from Apepi I to Apepi so that other readers aren't confused into thinking there was an Aqenenre Apepi II, etc. Apepi I/Apepi simply used all these prenomens in his reign. This source by the Belgian Egyptologist Jacques Kinnaer chronicles Apophis' use of all three prenomens in his reign: [6] It shouldn't be a controversial move. Can you do this? Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is Apep. Apepi needs to disambiguate. Maybe Apepi (pharaoh) or similar? --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Apepi (pharaoh) is fine. Can you do this please? It would end the confusion over Apepi I and Apepi II permanently. Thank You. Leoboudv (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks Admin Dbachman for your kind help in resolving the problem with Apepi. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics

Hi. Are you really of the opinion that "The study of language today broadly falls under structuralist[1][2] and post-structuralist[3] schools of thought"? I don't see this as being a very important division (in fact, it's not clear to me that post-structuralism plays much part at all in linguistics), and I don't think many other linguists would either. garik (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

uh, yes, I'm sorry, my revert may have been ill-advised. I do think the lead I reverted to contains a listing of central sub-topics that would belong there, and which got lost in your revert, but I probably didn't ponder the precise phrasing well enough. Feel free to revert for now, and I'll try to get back to this with some more time on my hands later. Regards, dab (𒁳) 13:55, 3 July 2008 (

No worries. I agree that useful stuff was lost in the revert, and I generally think the article needs a lot of work. But I'm cautious of putting too much effort in for the moment in case the article gets dragged into another debate about posts-structuralism etc. But I've edited the introduction now to try and keep the best of both versions. But yes, at some point, it needs a proper overhaul. garik (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems on Chechen people

Not sure I feel good about dragging you into another of those conflicts, but a user keeps on insisting on inserting tendentious material in the Chechen people article. It's not a great page and I haven't had that much to do with it except the etymology section (which is what alerted me to the monkey business). Quite apart from the question of the reliability of the sources he's provided, I followed the link to one of the references he gave (in Russian, of course) and it didn't check out. In fact it seemed to come to quite the opposite conclusion of what he was claiming (see the talk page for some details). He hasn't been forthcoming with an explanation of how this happened. In spite of this, he keeps reverting. He's probably violated WP:3RR by now, but I don't want to take the chance. Check his user page for a further possible clue to what's going on here. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of under control at the moment (although his attitude was "I make a mess, you should clean it up"). --Folantin (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back at it, replacing material I've begun to source with his own dubious, unverified stuff. (PS: There's also an unrelated fringy bit of folk etymology which another user is adding to the lead about "Nokhchi", the Chechen name for themselves, being derived from "Noah". See here for details [7]. Not a problem as such, but I've asked for proper sources). --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at ANI for what it's worth [8]. --Folantin (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Paleo-Balkan languages

Is Greek generally included in "Paleo-Balkan"? Cheers. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

European identity and culture

Hello dab. Your friend Muntuwandi has discovered European ethnic groups. He has now blanked the above section twice. I think you added it in the first place and he first claimed there was too much about America. I can no longer understand what he's trying to say. I wonder if you could help. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

He has also completely replaced Origins of religion with his own personal version. Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hah. Muntuwandi. He's going to rewrite the article into a piece how the Europeans came over from Africa, back in the Cro-Magnon days. dab (𒁳) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you admit it. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Khazar II (talk · contribs) reverted your merging of Moksha people to Mordvins, see [9]. Khoikhoi 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see the numerous comments at Talk:Mordvins. Khoikhoi 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, please have a look at our discussion reg Mordvins. Article Mordvins cannot be finished. There is a contradiction. We have to discuss it and come to a conclusion to solve this problem. --Khazar II (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Apepi concerns

The creator of the image with the Apepi seal (Captmondo) has responded to your concerns about its authenticity here: [10] It does say Auserre Apepi. Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Um...If your concerns have been satisfied, perhaps you might consider removing the cited concerned footnote on the seal of Apepi (pharaoh)? Just an idea. I think what was inscribed on the seal was Auserre, not Apepi/Ippi. Leoboudv (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mutuwandi and Manikongo

Check out Origin of religion. Mutuwandi got blocked for a month. Then, in his first edit since October, Manikongo reverts back to Mutuwandi's version piecemeal. Sockpuppet?--Berig (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Mordvins

My problems is you are just merging article Moksha (people) without saying a word no matter all information collected is lost. Why are you doing this? What is your problem? Pls comment--Numulunj pilgae 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw your comment at KhoiKhoi talk page. OK, pls suggest a way of discussing sources reliability, etc. Will continue on Mordvin(s) talk page. --Numulunj pilgae 07:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae (talk • contribs)

---

If article Moksha (people) is ready with all references and sources pls advise where I can place it or where I have to produce it for censorship. talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC).

July 2008

[snipped {{uw-npov1}} and moved h3 section from top of page]

Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to NPOV Sindhian (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

context: Talk:Hinduism. Sindhian actually makes my point for me: I was saying he prefers wikidrama and wikilawyering over actually investing encyclopedic work in article space. I rest my case, I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

cuneiform display problems

I think there is a technical error in the way cuneiform notation is being implemented in wikipeida. I've noticed the convention unicode|xxxxxx shows a lastresort font glyph and cuneiform|xxxxxx shows a sign. I made a few minor edits on the cuneiform articles. but I wanted to get your opinion before I do major changes. Maybe the way to go with this is to include a link for a free akkadian font download on every page where cuneiform is used.--Gurdjieff (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

the point of the {{cuneiform}} template is to select fonts known to support the cuneiform range. It should be updated as more such fonts appear (and may be dumped once such fonts become ubiquitous). Yes, we could create a helper template for cuneiform display problems, along the lines of {{RunicChars}}. --dab (𒁳) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|may I ask for the courtesy of pointing out where I am supposed to have violated the 3rr? I am constructively involved in various controversial articles, and I am not aware that I am involved in any actual edit-war at the moment. Slapping a blocking template on a talkpage without warning, and without reference to the actual rationale of the block is close to rogue-admin behaviour imho. Mistaken admin action upon a bogus report (see below). Also, in a case of a veteran user and admin who may have inadvertedly violated the 3rr in a complex edit, it may be preferable to point out the violation and ask the user to self-revert.}}

This is apparently in response to Wikipedia:AN3#User:Dbachmann_reported_by_User:Sindhian_.28Result:_48_hour_block.29, which I can't make heads or tails of. I've asked Scarian about it. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[11], [12], [13], and the fourth: [14]. Four consecutive reverts on Hinduism. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scarian, your diffs number two and three are actually the same. Note the "3 intermediate revisions not shown". You reacted to a bad-faith 3rr report by a known troll, which wasn't even formatted properly. Be careful with such cases please. I also recommend blocking Sindhian (talk · contribs) over WP:DISRUPT, WP:WL. Not just for the bad faith report, but also for his unacceptable behaviour at Talk:Hinduism. Furthermore, there is a certain probability of sockpuppetry, seeing how this "newbie" manages to trick newbie admins with rigged diffs. But I suppose a disruptive editor should be blocked regardless of whether they are also a sock of a banned user's. --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

These diffs are still pretty confusing, but this and this (Scarian's diffs one and two) are consecutive and thus don't fall under 3RR. This block appears to be a mistake, and should be undone. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me have a look here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I reccomend unblocking here personally. I looked through the diffs and while it may have hte makings of an edit war, I do not see a particular 3RR violation. Maybye I am looking at them wrong? However, DAB is an experieced editor who in my opinion has acted in good faith. A block without a warning does not seem appropriate to me? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I concur that there should have been a warning, I note that this page is semi-protected, which would preclude a new or anon user from issuing such a warning. I trust in dbachmann's experience that he is aware of the 3RR policy, though. See below, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The four diffs listed are all from today, and at these times:

10:45 (UTC)

10:56 (UTC), and includes the 10:45 edit

11:06 (UTC), and includes both the 10:45 and 10:56 edits, as well as an unrelated edit from Wikidas

11:11 (UTC), and includes the 10:45, 10:56, and 11:06 edits, as well as three other edits from Wikidas.

Based on that analysis, I don't see three reverts. The single edits did revert some material, but also seemed to show an attempt to address concerns raised by other editors. The 10:56 edit, for example, expanded a previously reverted description and tied it to a source. I'm sorry, Scarian, but I'm not seeing a violation here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on scarians page asking him to stop by here and re-review. If he does not stop by in a timley manner, I will be willing to lift this block as a mistaken block. I however want to give scarian time to review it himself. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked you, Dab. I do apologise for any inconvenience caused to anyone. In regards to your unblock statement, I am definitely not a rogue admin :-) - It appears as though there was reverts but I have mistakenly blocked thinking it was a, relatively, clear-cut 3RR vio. My apologies. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann is a reasonable guy, right? Rather than relying on technicalities and handing out templates and blocks, why not engage in actual discussion? If Dbachmann had been reverting excessively, he might have self-reverted if he'd been asked. This block doesn't seem sensible to me, regardless of whether the 3rr was technically violated. Friday (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What Friday said. Scarian is the same admin who blocked me for 3RR without bothering to do any background research. --Folantin (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The grudge does not make you feel easy. Let it go. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take the poet's advice: Хвалу и клевету приемли равнодушно / И не оспаривай глупца. --Folantin (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The poet? I guess you're referring to Pushkin, the most famous Russian poet in the world. Otherwise, you better say who is and just write down the Russian passage to English. I don't know whether the Google translation tool works good on the language, but Opera project needs your Russian ability much. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Pushkin. The basic gist is "Let it slide". "Opera project needs your Russian ability much" Actually, our Russian opera coverage is already pretty good (much of it thanks to User:Meladina - sadly no longer around, I believe). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's over and done with now, Friday. I've apologised and admitted that I made an error. So don't jump on the bandwagon please, sweetheart. Folantin: Your block was fully justified, so don't try and take an opportunity to take a dig at me, please. :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No bandwagon here. You did the right thing- you unblocked. I'm just saying in the future more reliance on actual communication and less on technicalities and templates would be good. Friday (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good advice in any circumstance, but I have to note that Scarian, despite having 8 different users questioning the block, has been quite professional and reasonable in both discussing the block and in unblocking, so yay team. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ultra here. I think this is an example of how the system does work properly in these situations. I think all parties involved have handled this very well. kudos all around. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is a good example of why many people are so eager to become an admin.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. I accept Scarian's apology, of course. The "rogue admin" is struck out. Let's just try to learn from this, in various ways. Such as, don't accept malformatted 3rr reports. Consider asking experienced user to self-revert if it appears they were tricked into 3rrvio in the course of a complex series of edits. And finally, can we make use of the attention this has generated to do some actual admin work, involving good judgement, and review Sindhian's career here on Wikipedia? I do insist that this account isn't what we are looking for in editors. On less lenient wikis (other than en), such a user would have been permabanned long ago as an obvious troublemaking misfit with no interest in building a 'pedia. thanks. --dab (𒁳) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up here dab. Sindihan has tried to revive this as WP:AN. I left him a warning about his disruptive behavior. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! For you I'll invent a self-reverting Survival Star.Rokus01 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

of course, the trolls would prefer that incidents are not resolved with common sense and circumspection. Which is precisely why admins should try to do precisely that, and be selected for their capability of doing so. --dab (𒁳) 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New thread on AN

There is yet another thread about you on AN, by the same user. Just thought you might want to be informed. — _Maggot^Syn 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(rolleyes) I can't believe nobody has permabanned this chap yet. --dab (𒁳) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Modism

Hi Dieter,

I noticed that you reverted my edit on Modistae. The term "Modism" is another name for that movement. This fact is apparant in the title of the last book in the reference section: A Pragmatic Approach to Language in Modism. Would you mind if I readded the term to the lede?

Neelix (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

well, sure. My point is that the Modistae are the Modists, while Modism is the name for the movement, not the individual members. I have not reverted your edit as such, I have corrected the identification of Modistae=Modism as synonyms. --dab (𒁳) 16:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Faith cited as Fact

Difficult, isn't it... [15] The same sort of thing is happening at Septuagint. Jheald (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pristina Edit

Talk:Pristina#Republic_of_Kosova_to_Republic_of_Kosovo

I made an editprotect request and Sandstein said no. I asked him if I could have another admin who knows Kosovo consensus and articles to make the edit. He said yes. Will you take action Dab? Beam 20:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, can I call you Dieter? You can call me Beam. Beam 20:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it. If you don't let me call you Dieter, I'm going to file an AN about your constant incivility and assholenes. Be warned...Dieter! mwahahahahah Beam 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

oh dear, I'd better let you call me Dieter then :op --dab (𒁳) 07:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dating the Bible

Actually what many people forget is that without rabbinic chronology there wouldn't be much to comment on because Greek and Latin chronologies take a lot of assuming also. All I'm trying to do is include the data from the cultural context pertinent to the article. If someone doesn't agree with it they can add suitably references text in the article on textual criticism--Meieimatai 10:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Race and crime

That was rude of me, I apologize. I did not notice that your edit right before mine had also added the merger template, and somehow jumped to the conclusion that it was old and the target article had been deleted. Anyway, I opened up a discussion section here. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

no problem :) --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unicode chart Linear B

Template:Unicode chart Linear B has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Octra Bond (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Broad homeland hypothesis

Hello dab. Your scholarly friend Rokus01 seems to have added very strange content to this article. His statements about J.P. Mallory seem incorrect. I am not knowledgeable at all in this area, but what Rokus01 has written seems at odds with the account in Chapter 26 on the Homeland Problem in The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006) by J. P. Mallory, D. Q. Adams, Pages 442-482 (viewable on www.amazon.com). At the end of this chapter a 2002 article of J.P. Mallory, explaining the Steppe theory, is cited. The article is "Indo-Europeans and the Steppelands: The Model of Language Shift", Proceedings of the 13th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Washington Institute for the Study of Man, Pages 1-27. Is this not the Kurgan hypothesis which Rokus01 claims is not widely accepted? (I am still trying to understand Rokus01 sentence "Agnostic of an intense mutual cultural interrelationship throughout this broader region, ..." I have tried using google to translate this into Dutch and then back into English, but so far it hasn't helped.) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rokus is trying to hide his pov-pushing behind contorted arguments. I am not sure who he is doing this for, since even if he should succeed, the result is so cryptic that he cannot hope for any audience that would actually read his stuff. He is doing this consistently, and intelligently. His "mistakes" only ever go towards one implication, the discrediting of the "steppe" origins of PIE. I guess you are doing him too much credit to actually try and figure out where he has hidden the fallacy this time. He has shown he is unwilling to edit honestly time and time again, and the burden to show that his stuff is valid clearly lies on him by now. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page. There does seem to be some misrepresentation of Mallory's views in the article. Mallory seems to be in favour of the Kurgan hypothesis but gives a very balanced account of how academics use both archaeology (particularly traces of flora and fauna) and linguistics to examine the various hypotheses. It is hard to find this out from Rokus01's article. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mallory is one of the main current proponents of the KH. As any bona fide scholar should, he is up front about weighing the hypothesis' strengths against its weaknesses. Fringe scholars, and non-scholarly pov-pushers and trolls, of course, will pounce on the weaknesses of the mainstream view and tout the (supposed) strengths of their own view, while trying to hide the powerful strengths that makes the mainstream view the mainstream view in the first place, and the glaring holes that make the fringe view the fringe view. Rokus has been doing exactly that for more than a year now, and I don't think his show is remotely interesting any more at this point. --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this article has now been put up for deletion by User:Merzbow. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant hoax

Can you delete this (Acheron Parthenopaeus) as a blatant hoax? It's simply our biography of Lucian copied and pasted under the name of a non-existent Greek writer. I've read WP:CSD but I don't think I'll tag it myself because I don't want to have to explain to some ignorant admin at great length why this is patent nonsense. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. BTW, you might be interested in [16] - re the Rydberg stuff. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Long section on history of litanies

Main article: Marian litany

Hi, I noticed that we are both improving the litanies page. What do you think of that very long history section? It seems to need much help - I was going to delete most of it, but was not sure. What do you think? You may have inserted that initially, so if you want to shorten it please do, else I may delete most of it to make it look better. But I will wait until you decide what is best for it. Cheers History2007 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just the CathEnc text. As such, a high quality encyclopedic piece dating to 1913. We should definitely keep it, wikify it, and expand it further. dab (𒁳) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is encyclopedic, but in my opinion pretty dated and I think probably 3 people will read it all word for word in 4 years unless it is really cleaned up. I can not bebothered to read it all! If you feel like cleaning it up, please do. The problem with CathEnc is that it is hardly read by the modern crowd because of the way it is written. Anyway, I will leave it up to you. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

well, the audience of the Marian litany article is probably rather limited in any case. We should not look towards maximizing readership, but towards presenting the highest possible quality to whatever readers the article does reach. That said, we do not need to keep the CathEnc text word for word, it being preserved elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine with me. Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pristina

Talk:Pristina#Republic_of_Kosova_to_Republic_of_Kosovo

Please go and take care of that edit. I spoke to Sandstein and he said I could ask an admin who has knowledge regarding consensus and etc. Help me Dieter. Beam 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I now can goto sleep, I was waiting up all night for you to finally help me. Ok, that's a lie, but now at least I get to have sweet dreams of Dieter helping me... :D Beam 07:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

seriously, Beam, you should internalise the old wiki wisdom of "there is no deadline". It doesn't matter if an article takes its good time before it becomes stable, and a few hours more or less certainly don't matter at all. --dab (𒁳) 07:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, to a point. But that sounds like a lazy person invented it. If everyone took that o heart no article would ever be improved, and this would just be a message board. Beam 12:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Family Do's and Don'ts

Do you know any book that talks about Family dos and don'ts that talks about, "What to actually do when you have a tricky situation". The book must refer to verses in Vedas and Explain them (If logical).

Why we normally have disputes in a house? The reason is simple, because we have a new problem (tricky situation) and we do not know how to solve that. So, do you know any book that talk about many of common family problems, with their solutions?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

try WP:RD. If you want to learn about genuinely "Vedic" domestic life, try the Grhyasutras. Vedic India was a hardcore patriarchal society, and hence any "common problems" would probably have been solved by beating the wives and children until morale improved. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dab BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dab, that was an interesting observation. Now can you please provide references where "wife beating" is mentioned in Vedic Indian Literature? I am asking you this question out of curiosity. I want to know whether you have valid references for your assertions or these assertions are just a by product of western culture and upbringing (HeLord & Wifebeating).-Bharatveer (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hypocrite, apply that to yourself. Trips (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

you have violated the 3RR.

• on Indigenous Aryans: [17] [18] [19] [20]
• on Purushottam Nagesh Oak [21] [22] [23] [24].

Revert yourself or face the consequences. Worse, you have started a revert-war, blanking content without giving any justification whatsoever on talk. dab (𒁳) 15:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar from Bhadani

		The Socratic Irony Barnstar
		For Skilled and Eloquent Irony. In a somber moment of deep self-reflection, Socrates summed up the entire Wikipedia editor experience in his final words which he posed as a question: "I drank what?" --Bhadani (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You are a strange man, Mr. Bhadani. dab (𒁳) 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You have correctly de-cyphered a part of my personality. Having said this, I may add that there should be a place for a little fun in human life. I have seen your work for more than three years, and I would like to put it on record that I hold you in very high esteem and admire your patience and tenacity in dealing with a variety of nonsense here including provocations hurled at you. I admire and congratulate you for your value addition here ... Dear Dab, in case, I have ever hurt you in any way, please forget that ... I really admire you! Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you for this sincere message. Let me assure you that while I may have noted your "strangeness", I have never filed you away as malicious or disruptive. As to myself, I think my competence in dealing with provocations, and my skills of second-guessing insincerity and bluffing have greatly profited from my wiki activity, also in my real life. While on the other hand self-confidence built on a happy reasonably successful private life and martial arts practice enable me to remain equanimous in the face of frustrations and provocations on-wiki. In this sense, I feel I have managed to make Wikipedia a meaningful exercise (intellectual, social and spiritual) forming part of my real life without succumbing to the dangers of obsessing over it. Best regards, --dab (𒁳) 07:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, you enjoy shoving policy in people's faces. Admit it! Beam 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I must, at some twisted level of unconsciousness. At least, if I had a dime fore every time I've pointed people to WP:RS or WP:DUE or WP:ENC with angelic patience, or Socratic assholism as the case may be, I suppose I could quit my day job :) dab (𒁳) 13:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me run this scenario by you. Some asshole, say like me, makes an edit at an contentious article you've worked months on getting consensus. You revert it. I call you a name. You drop policy after policy in my face from NPOV to Civility. I call you more names. You revert me again, I revert you. You again chastise me as a little baby who doesn't understand policy. I go into your contribs and revert 10 things you've done. I get banned. You don't enjoy that? Really? Yes you do, YOU LOVE IT, you revel in the pain of others. The pain caused by your quick wit and adept understanding of policy. And not on some bullshit unconscious level either. I know it, and you know it. Beam 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everybody's wired the same. El_C 13:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) But Dab is definitely like that. I've worked with him in the exact situation I've described. As both the asshole as well as the NPOV defender. Beam 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not enjoy trolls. I do enjoy that Wikipedia works in spite of the trolls. But what keeps me around is the interaction with intelligent editors from whose expertise I can learn. The trolls are background noise and need some swatting from time to time, but Wikipedia wouldn't be worth anything if it was just about chasing infantile morons. It's unique because of the hard-working, intelligent, educated users. Big surprise: it's probably to do with it being an encyclopedia project. People who aren't here for the 'pedia become wikilawyers or admins playing power games at best, or they just get bored and fade out otherwise. dab (𒁳) 13:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That goes without saying. But as you say, the enjoyment comes from "Wikipedia work[ing] in spite of the trolls" which I know you enjoy, as do I. Beam 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the joy that's in a troll blocked is comparable to the joy of a slight cramp fading. You could well do without such joys of relief if that meant doing without the bother in the first place. Besides, come on Beam. Policy isn't that difficult to understand. Anyone with near-average intelligence can spend ten minutes reading the core policy pages and understand what this is all about, and I will not have any advantage on them because I "know policy". --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

btw, I have admitted to "temporal assholism" because I've just created the The No Asshole Rule redirect. Apparently a sort of WP:DICK proposed in "real" literature. This Sutton man appears to possess a good deal of common sense, and I say so even though I'm not really into "management science" at all. I do, of course, pay close attention to direct my assholism (if any) towards assholes exclusively. If I realize that I've given a dose of assholism to an innocent party, I am quick and sincere in apologizing. Of course I make mistakes. I even feel the bile rising in bad cases of admin assholism (of which there are fortunately still very few blatant cases, but hey, we have 2000 admins now, which by the nature of humanity must include some 200 chronic jerks at least; I like to call this the "10% rule of anthropological assholism"). At the first sign of emotional involvement, I call it a day and come back to the case at a later time. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Cradle of civilization

{{uw-3rr}}

[25] [26] [27] You ignored my request for information why sourced information was removed on food production, an indispensable precondition to civilization. Rokus01 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

hah, are we feeling malicious today, Rokus? :op In my humble opinion, "food production" is necessary but not sufficient for civilization, much like breathing, language, social interaction and dancing. Discussion of the Neolithic Revolution belongs on Neolithic Revolution. Contrary to your claim, I have not "ignored your request", but unlike your seeming preference for communication by edit summary and warning templates, have left a note on the article talkpage. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Ancient history}}

Thanks for the cooperation on editing this ... J. D. Redding 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you for not insisting on your original revision. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mujahideen54

Hi Blnguyen -- is there any record regarding the Mujahideen54 (talk · contribs) case? Any checkuser case, any blocking template? You seem to have blocked RefuG (talk · contribs), but I didn't catch you documenting anything anywhere. I would be interested if there is any "main" account here. Regards, dab (𒁳) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well because I have checkuser I just did it myself without having a formal request lodged because I thought from the way Mujahideen54 was acting on talk pages he was a bad-hand account for stirring up debate on talk pages, or a banned user trying to cause distractions. And it came up with about 80 overlapped socks. I didn't notice yesterday, but one of the socks I found was Padan (talk · contribs) who was already blocked as a sock of RajivLal, and when I followed the SSP page it said that he was a sock a Thileep.... but looking at Thileep's old writeup, yeah, the IP range is definitely him. Mujaideen is Thileep. But I didn't tag all 80 of them because I thought it's a waste of time. But you can add {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} if you want. It took me about 45 minutes just to block all of those jokers...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Finno-Volgaic languages

Hey, I noticed you reverted my page move at Finno-Volgaic languages. I see what you're saying, sort of. My question is, how should we change the first paragraph of Finnic peoples? Should we change it to "Volga Finns, speakers of Finno-Volgaic languages", or leave it as it is? Khoikhoi 02:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see Volga Finns. Khoikhoi 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Mordvins starts out with "a people who speak languages of the Volga-Finnic (Finno-Volgaic) branch of the Finno-Ugric language family." Khoikhoi 04:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, this is confusing as it stands. I took the time to sort of draw attention to the problems in passing, but I didn't resolve the issue. This needs to be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Category sort

I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:" . Hope you won't mind. :) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you for that. --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome :) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosova Article

I reverted your map. Please be civil and reach a consensus before you change the map. I dislike this new map because it does not bring the reader any closer to understanding where Kosova is on the map. Not even the locater has names. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that blatant partisan pov-pushers like you count in an appraisal of WP:CONSENSUS. Otherwise, there will obviously never be one. "Consensus" is understood to refer to bona fide editors respecting policy, excluding nationalist trolls that just happened to have avoided permanent bans so far. --dab (𒁳) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The only POV-pusher around here is you, but here feel free and elect me for a "permanent ban" right Wikipedia:ANI Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ah-hah. By virtue of not having my userpage plastered with national flags? As does every other user of Wikipedia along with you? I don't think so. My dear lad, I can only hope that you are a Serb out to pose as a parody of a hardcore Albanian nationalist. We'll, we've had a jolly good laugh on these pesky Albanians, alright? Time to stop the fun and edit seriously now. --dab (𒁳) 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Stone

I didn't get round to it earlier, but thank you for your input on the Black Stone issue. I know very little about Hindu nationalism or Ahmadiyya fringecruft, so your awareness of those issues was invaluable. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have hardly ever edited medical articles. If I have, it was likely generic cleanup done in passing. I have no special background knowledge or interest in medical topics. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

I must have misunderstood when I reverted an edit and blamed you for removing the map. I apologise, but we have not agreed to remove the CIA map and I don't know who did this because the CIA map should stay until a new consensus has been reached. While you were away we agreed to include the CIA map and that agreement is valid until a new agreement is in place. Regards --NOAH (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have explained my concerns with the map, and several editors have followed my argument. The CIA map isn't acceptable. Until there is an actual consensus, it's better to show no map. --dab (𒁳) 08:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

the adventures of Thirusivaperur

Your edits at History of Hinduism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

way to go, call me a "vandal" for all the good that's going to do you or your campaign. --dab (𒁳) 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Last Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to History of Hinduism, you will be blocked from editing. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

will I now? Good luck with your RFA then. --dab (𒁳) 08:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

comments vandalism

Could you please stop playing in my comments? Here you are putting your comment infront of mine, as it would be my reply to your comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Hinduism&diff=226607888&oldid=226605984 And here you're making something very strange. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Hinduism&diff=226692655&oldid=226692346 Don't do it again. This is of course my first and last warning in this case. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if you don't stop these bogus warnings, you're going to be in trouble. One of your diffs is completely harmless. The other shows an accidential insertion of a linebreak. wtf? Of course, because you have no case in this "dispute", you're reduced to making noise about random crap. You wouldn't believe how often I've seen your type on Wikipedia before. boring. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what you say here. I don't believe one sentence anymore. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

well, it's my talkpage, isn't it. I didn't invite you to come over here and vent your spleen, young man. By all means feel free to stay away entirely. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, "old man", this is a freezone, it's wikipedia. The "good old Nazi-times" are over. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to roll this back, but I think I'll leave this up for the edification of the esteemed editors watching my talkpage. Wikipedia isn't a "freezone" where you can deposit your vitriol and your random nonsense as you see fit. You are essentially calling me a Nazi. For no reason whatsoever, your "contributions" aren't even to topics remotely related to Nazism. You're not too far away from a block at this point buddy. Good luck. dab (𒁳) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR - History of Hinduism

{{3RR}} --Thirusivaperur (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

physician, heal thyself. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

enough

ok[28], this chap is definitely in need to go out for some fresh air (note the nerve of calling me a Nazi, and then "reminding me" of WP:NPA in the space of ten minutes --simply astounding). any takers? --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned

Following noting the AIV report and responses I have taken a look at the above matter. As far as I can see, this is a content dispute - mostly on the interpretation or primacy of sources - but I note that in this diff the edit summary does not accurately reflect the edit, which appears to be a revert to an earlier version by yourself which removes far more than the summary implies. I am also disappointed that a report to AIV, which was correctly identified as a content dispute, was used as a launchpad to have the reporter blocked - when it had been clearly decided not being vandalism. I do not see the basis on which sanctions for one parties actions are declined, but the others is upheld. To be clear, I consider the actions on both sides to be indistinguishable as regards being contrary to the guidelines (non discussion, blind reverting, accusatory and inaccurate edit summaries, and absence of good faith).
In short, I see some basis for Thirusivaperur's claim of admin cabalism. He gets blocked, and you don't. I am pleased to note that you have not edited the article since T has been blocked, but I hope that you see that one party to a content dispute being blocked (and having that on the record) severely prejudices any possibility of there being a chance of consensus. I might suggest that you, as an admin, may be in the position of varying the block to time served as a means to promoting a proper debate.
Lastly, it is not sufficient to say that you are responding to poor faith edits by another editor. Admins are not permitted that luxury; we are supposed to the ones who resolve such conflicts, not participate in them, and we do not get involved in edit/revert wars, and we don't appear to be giving a nod and a wink to fellow sysops when in a dispute.
I trust the impressions of a third party gives you some food for thought under the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, this user wasn't blocked because he was in a content dispute. he was blocked because he harassed me on my talkpage, went forum-shopping with bogus calls of "vandalism", and generally threw around a dreadful temper. I have done none of these things, and consequently am unsure why you would think the block was "unbalanced", or why you should remonstrate that "only one party to a content dispute being blocked". Content disputes are to be resolved detachedly, civilly and encyclopedically. If a user starts misbehaving instead, they may well be blocked for user conduct, obviously without the necessity to block all good users involved in the dispute as well.

I should hope that misbehavior of the sort on record above should result in a block, or sane editing would quickly become impossible. I have not communicated with the blocking admin off-wiki, but I am aware that various users are watching my talkpage. If you are still concerned, feel free to take it to WP:AN, but for courtesy refer to my reply here. Also, if you are concerned about the topical "dispute", you are most welcome to read up the relevant sources and chime in at Talk:History of Hinduism. This is an encyclopedia, not an online friends network, remember? dab (𒁳) 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to the matter on the basis of this diff at AIV. This is subsequent to the reviewing admin denying the report as a content dispute. I find my concerns deepened that you are indifferent to the possibility that the subsequent block of Thirusivaperur for "disruption" and harassment, without any previous warning, may appear to have been prompted by your comment. That you appear sanguine regarding your own editing stance, choosing not to comment upon it, and feel that a report to WP:AN is the only forum in which you might deem to discuss the matter, leads me to regret that I should ever have tried to raise the matter quietly on your talkpage. I shall not be making such a report, since I try only to involve myself in matters where I feel there is a possibility of there being progress being achieved. By your tone and lack of civility I realise that this is not possible, and thus I shall not waste any further effort. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

wow. ok. happy editing. dab (𒁳) 18:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chorny Kofe

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chorny Kofe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tan ǀ 39 17:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Jungs Anagramm

Sehr geehrte Herr Bachmann. Bin ich hier richtig bei dem Autor der Webpage über Jungs Anagramm? Wenn Sie das Thema noch interessiert, würde ich mich freuen, von Ihnen auf meiner deutschen Wikipedia-Seite (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Grey_Geezer) zu hören. Ich habe eine Idee, die auf Ihren Gedanken aufbaut und die vermutlich in 1 - 2 Wochen etwas (machbare) Kombinatorik erfordert. Besten Gruss --Grey Geezer (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chorny Kofe

I have nominated Chorny Kofe, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chorny Kofe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Tan ǀ 39 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian race

Hi. There's a user on the Caucasian race page that has just selectively quoted passages from a source on the old Piltdown Man hoax, and it sounds pretty racist against Whites. Thing is, I've looked into the source itself, and it's actually racist against Blacks not Whites. The user just quoted select portions of the text to depict Whites in an unflattering light. For instance, he wrote that Whites have an 'enlargement of the mouth cavity', but neglects to mention that the man who made that assertion was comparing Whites to both New Guineans and apes when he said that (larger mouths being better vestibules for speech than the parsimonious dental arcade of ape or New Guinean is how the source really explains this discrepancy). I also caught him trying to insert a quote about the supposedly 'bigger noses' in Whites that he got from a novel. Can you please have a look-see? Soupforone (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

you do realize, I hope, that the notion of a "Caucasian race" is of purely historical interest? This isn't about truth in any way, just about documenting historical (obsolete) scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

White people suck. So do fat people. Beam 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

not on my talkpage, young man. No sucking around here unless I specifically encourage it. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as a fat white person it's natural. I'll work on it. Beam 13:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

de.wiki Heidentum

Die Sachlage der in diesem thematischen Umfelden, besonders resp. der paganen germanischen Religionen von Seiten der Motive der beteiligten "Autoren" ist stark abweichend. Hinsichtlich Benutzer:Fingalo gibt es jedoch keine Zweifel. Vielmehr bin ich recht erstaunt auf welch fachlich niedrigem Nieveu die en.Wiki Artikel teilweise vegetieren ua. als Beispiel Anglo-Saxon Paganism, an dem Du massgeblich beteiligt bist, und welches der Kollege al-Qamar schon trefflich bemängelt hat. Kurzum: Deinen heutigen Revert habe ich zurückgesetzt, ich kenne zwar einige Texte zum Sachverhalt, sprich aber mal Fingalo direkt an. Gruß --Alexander72 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

check this site out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Classical_language —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirusivaperur (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Classical language. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Salt of Evolutionary origins of religion

Why the salt? There was material there that was legitimate candidate for merge to Origins of religion article? The previous AfD was for Origins of religion wasn't it? There was discussion of possible WP:GHBH activity on the talk page at Origins of religion. Somethings not right here? I think we need to compile a list of which editors are protecting/redirecting some of the articles that link of on this topic. It seems to me as though there is a clear history of articles undergoing edit wars with the confusion thus created, pages have been split off into other articles and redirects being created over time to basically kill any legitimate hope of working on these articles constructively? Anyhow, just seems strange that the salt was put on when the likelihood of merging some of that material was still under discussion and mention was made that the issues would be going to ArbCom. I'm still trying to work out your involvement with various article history's and the original AfD? So what's with the Development of religion page? It shouldn't be a disambiguation page in my opinion. The history there is pretty much indicative of the problems within this whole group of articles. I think a big part of my concerns about all of this lies with the same group of editors being involved on several different articles and it's turned into one big edit war. Some editors obviously need to step back from this and let fresh eyes take a look.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

the article keeps being recreated by a banned user evading his block by sockpuppets. I am not aware of any legitimate discussion or dispute on this at this point. You are obviously welcome to start work on the topic, but a block on Wikipedia is a block, and we can't let people back in just because they try hard enough evading it. dab (𒁳) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem - 1967 Unification or annexation

I have requested mediation of the discussion of the 1967 War at Jerusalem here and am currently alone in arguing that the term 'unification' should be paired with 'annexation'. What do you think? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

that's just politics. One man's "unification" is another's "annexation", the thing referred to is the same. The important thing to note is that the unification/annexation has never been sanctioned by international law, and indeed been condemned by various UN resolutions, as meticulously listed at List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel. --dab (𒁳) 08:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You won't be able to get annexation in the article. There are way too many owners at Israel related articles. Trust me, I've tried to edit some NPOV criticism into some of the articles. If you really push it, you'll be called anti-semite. I'm going to write up a "Beam's Law - reductum anti-semitum." Beam 03:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm used to it. It would be the first time I'd be called an anti-Semite though, the Hindutva crowd is usually content to shout Nazi. Vell, vell, we'll see about that. I deny all intentions to annex the article, of course, it will just be unified with my point of view :op You need help in the Latin department, Beamathan. That would be reductio ad antisemitismum - "Iudaeos (nares improbas habentes) in dominationem totius mundi conspirasse opinatur. " dab (𒁳) 07:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I will keep that in mind when/if I reconsider. For now I truly need a break. Please do send me an email through my userpage if something brews out of this developing situation with our new conspiracy theorist friend (GHBH ... etc.). Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Early Indian epigraphy

Can you give a rationale for splitting the Early Indian epigraphy article? Place them at Talk:Early Indian epigraphy. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

YATAOOR (Yet Another Thread About Origin of religion)

Hi; I was trying to be careful to restrict my commentary to discussion of the problematic behaviour rather than the user, so that hopefully he will stay calm and maybe see the sense of it. I know things are frustrating, but would you mind modifying your comment a bit? Anti-mastodon spray. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

well, I was putting it as diplomatically as I could. Commenting on his content for weeks on end had zero effect on Muntuwandi, so perhaps he will pause if we hold up a mirror. I wasn't strictly saying he was stupid, I'm still saying he is acting stupidly, as kindly as I could. That he has been acting very stupidly must be dawning on him I suppose, he just needs to sort of pull himself together to face the fact. Anyway, I have no objections if you refactor the talkpage, or blank the entire section, since Mw had no business posting there in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright; I truncated thusly, is that OK? Anything that gets this finished and the focus back on the article is good as far as I'm concerned. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

well, we don't need to talk to Mw. He is banned. You are perfectly free to turn your full attention to working on the article right now :) dab (𒁳) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is he actually banned or only indefinitely blocked? I'm confused on that part. I have some strong points of view so that I didn't want to get very involved with that article (plus I'm trying to get ready for a net break, which I should really concentrate on :-P). Hopefully User:Sting au will bring some new blood to the topic, I think most of his initial concerns got sorted out. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

He was banned for a month, after which he unleashed his "sock hydra", which bought him an indefinite ban. Fair enough I say, any user trying that sort of thing has no place left in the community. dab (𒁳) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Finno Volgaic vs. Volga Finnic

Hi Dbachmann, you have a new message at Talk:Finno-Volgaic_languages. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada FAC nomination

Maybe you can have a peek at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anekantavada. I am trying to assume good faith, but somehow certain objections raised seem to a bit frivolous even after giving proper explanation. I hope you can chip in something. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Coptic Wikisource

Hello, there...

I would greatly appreciate it if you could weigh in on Requests for new languages/Wikisource Coptic.

...If you could join the group, I would greatly appreciate it.

Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RSS

The discussion you started in Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#The_Elst_quote is going on. But Tripping Nambiar's arguments are getting tiresome. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

well, someone will just have to bite the bullet and ban this user then. It's not like anyone's expecting anything like a useful contribution off him at this point. Writing an encyclopedia is difficult enough without babysitting the terminally quarrelsome while doing it. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

It would be good to explain the reason for your apparently hostile and uncooperative approach to editing, as for instance at Isha Upanishad. On this page above, you advertise good faith and politeness, and on your page you write;

In most cases where fruitful collaboration breaks down, except for patent silliness, at least one party is strongly motivated either by an irrational sentiment of either religion, nationalism, or, psychologically probably related, the cranky (nerdy, ADHD[5]) mind caught in pseudoscience[6]

and I must say, you seem to have discounted fruitful collaboration, have refused it often, and seem to be irrationally motivated in so doing. I would be genuinely interested to hear what leads you to behave in this way. Redheylin (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

the reason is your history of serious lack of good judgement, or bona fide discussion. After your stunts at Orgone, I am dismayed to see you widening your field of activities. As soon as you are prepared to engage in actual encyclopedic discussion on the Isha Upanishad (as opposed to random quibbling and discussion of non-issues like self-made images), I will be overjoyed to enter constructive debate. It's really up to you. dab (𒁳) 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for completing the work on the Shakha page. There is an example how we have co-operated with similar intent. I note that you have reworked the Isha page without discussion, so I think we have to set that complaint aside! As for the Orgone page, please note that my edits were upheld and supported by several editors and the page remains today substantially as I left it. The remainder of your comments are personal invective - you are mistaken to try to dress them in the clothes of policy and objectivity. What I was really asking about was what is making you act badly? I think it policy is; that another editor, is seldom responsible for that. I would like to invite you again to think over your attitude and, as you say, engage in discussion, rather than engaging in insults like your little tirade above. You will have already noticed that I am able to translate a variety of languages and have a considerable knowledge of the texts in question. Redheylin (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ok -- look, I am willing to appreciate you edit in good faith. You'll just have to accept that I will tell you where your contributions are exasperating. I have no interest in spending time directing "tirades" your way. If you can see your way to contributing constructively to Isha Upanishad, I am happy to give you credit. No, I am sorry, I haven't so far noted your 'considerable knowledge of the texts in question', but I'll be on the lookout. dab (𒁳) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's better. There is no problem at all if you tell me that you find this or that exasperating. The problem will arise if you simply erase without discussion, or if you dress your personal exasperation in the vestments of authority and policy. You have obviously done a lot of work on these articles, and I respect that, but you must also be aware that a great deal remains to do. The Hindu and other sections are chock-full of badly written prose based on partisan versions of primary sources. Look at the lack of source material on the Isha page. Now, I have very little here in the way of academic sources but I can very easily see when an article on a Upanisad represents only one of the four main strains of vedanta. I would rather add the other three but, if you insist upon blocking that, then the undue weight has to be removed and we will end up, like now, with almost no article. I think we have just made things worse! That is why your co-operation would be appreciated. I recall a while ago - there are some very dubious derivations of the word "prana" flying around, including contradictions in various wiki articles and I asked you to help me sort it out. Once again, if you do not do so - and you did not even answer - there's no option but to delete. So you may see that it is possible for you also to give the impression that your actions are not motivated in the most helpful way. Please just do as you say - let me know when you are exasperated. You will be listened to. Then you will get back your good faith fast enough. Redheylin (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

my exasperation is due to your refusal to submit to policy, no "vesting" involved. I do appreciate that an enormous amount of work is still needed in these articles, that's why I'm exasperated with losing time with non-issues and random nitpicking. Yes, the only way forward here is the citation of academic literature on the subject. I did in fact react to your Prana request, right here. "The Hindu and other sections are chock-full of badly written prose" -- tell me about it.... I must say I am much pacified by your ability to communicate in eloquent English at least. I am used to being shouted at in broken English whenever I try to clean up a Hindu topic, so here's a change for the better at least :) dab (𒁳) 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Right - I signed up because I noticed the poor quality of many articles within my sphere of interest. I took on "developmental biology and vitalism in the early 20c" and completed quite a few articles before I crossed over an invisible line into Reich, alternative medicine and energy, where I found a small core of single issue editors without adequate knowledge aggressively pushing articles of their personal faiths - an ugly conspiracy of far-right fundamentalists and pseudo-skeptics. Meanwhile I had become alert that Theosophy, which was influential upon the first subject, was a sad trough of primary-source jargon. This, of course, crossed over into Hinduism, (in an attempt at proper historic presentation) where I found, once again, a small number of key pages monopolised by cult groups, this time chiefly the Hare Krishnas. I am interested in pages that read well, look good and are well sourced. The first two I can always manage, the last may be somewhat inadequate at times, but I leave them better than I found them and observe neutrality, balance and respect towards previous editors. Each article may take hours, and I will always find an image if possible. If you are going to engage in unilateral destructive editing, rather than improvements, you will not be looking like an icon of policy because you will be attempting to force me to leave those crummy articles alone. I expect to be able to change a very bad article into an alrightish one without someone destroying it on the grounds that it is not yet a featured article. I shall assume good faith, trust you and tell you in advance; I shall continue to edit the mukhya upanisads, and Indian poetry, dance and music articles and I would like your suggestions to be constructive. You may count upon my respect and support for proper secondary sourcing and historical overview, and you may register your preferences and advice on any article. Thanks for your note on prana - I was being given "pra-ana" and heaven knows what. I knew it was wrong but could not prove it. Redheylin (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin, in the light of our exchange here, and your obvious capability to engage in meaningful discussion, your obvious good faith, and your perfectly commendable dedication to encyclopedicity, let me apologize for my antagonistic tone at Talk:Isha Upanishad. We seem to have started out on the wrong foot here. Let's start over with a clean slate, shall we, and I will tell you respectfully when I think you are wong (and why) in the future, ok? dab (𒁳) 10:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am happy - and I will welcome your advice. Redheylin (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you hadn't noticed ...

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_25#Broad_homeland_hypothesis Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Koenraad Logghe

I disagree with your associating the names of Evola and co. to that person: there are discussions, today, on the pertinence to associating the "traditionnalist school", whatever that word designates, with right-ring recuperation; the work of Sedgewick is highly controversed. Your source is about the discussion on the pertinence of the appelation inside right-wing groups, not a proof of any linkeage. Even the term "traditionnalist school" is being abandonned by some scholars, eg. Fabbri, Accart, because of the confusions rekated to the different acceptions of the word "traditionnalist". TwoHorned (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

you must not have looked at the same source. In the text I linked, Logghe explicitly associates his groups with Evola and Guénon, calling "completely wrong" a speaker who had rejected the connection. I am aware of the terminological difficulties. Also, an author's being appropriated by neo-fascists doesn't, of course, necessarily cast a shadow on that author. An author has to be judged by his own work, not by his fanboys. That said, Evola was of course a fascist, and so it isn't very surprising he is liked by neo-fascists. --dab (𒁳) 06:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I've neutralized a little bit. Evola's name is often used by right-wing circles, that's for sure,but the debate today is on the association of Guénon with that stuff. That Logghe quotes it does not mean the association is meaningful. TwoHorned (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

um, it is meaningful to Logghe, not to Guénon, which is why we mention Guénon on Logghe's article, and not Logghe on Guénon's. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivilty by IP on Talk:Kosovo

When I removed his spam from the talk page, he responded with this [29]. Can anything be done about this guy? --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DENY. If the trolling persists, the IP will just be blocked. It's not a problem. dab (𒁳) 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Move of Solidarity

It was discussed two years ago: Talk:Solidarity_(trade_union)#Name_-_move.3F. Perhaps you'd like to comment there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care terribly much about this. I just think it is obvious the main meaning of English solidarity isn't the trade union. But I left the redirect of Solidarity in place because I couldn't be bothered to fix all the links pointing to it. It's not a big deal. --dab (𒁳) 06:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Botanical identity of Soma-Haoma

Hi. Do you have a preferred format for this article? I'm seeing some non-standard use of italics, quotes, etc. and I was wondering if you could either fix it or give me some guidance. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this recetly. It sure needs cleanup, not only in terms of formatting. Please be my guest :) dab (𒁳) 17:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a footnote explaining the use of the asterisk (*Sauma) in historical linguistics? I'm assuming you want to keep those in the article. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Source Reference Credit

Hi DAB. As I update the East-Hem maps, I've been doing a better job of documenting my info sources. I've been crediting your maps this way, for example:

1. User:Dbachmann. Maps of “Hallstatt_LaTene 800-500 BCE” and “Hallstatt_culture.png”. Available on Wikipedia.

Is that okay, or would you prefer I use your name, Dieter Bachmann? Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

hi Thomas -- a link to the image, commons:Image:Hallstatt LaTene.png should be sufficient, since that gives all information required. Note that I give my sources for the map, Haywood (2001), so if you're just using the general outline, you might consult that instead and give it as your reference directly [30]. --dab (𒁳) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian religions

I know I am troubling you once again for the same thing, but i need your help here. One anon IP is making edits on Indian religions page and adding some material that all Indian religions are offshoots of Hinduism and pushing his POV. This is contrary to the consensus with IAF. The IP is refuisng to have a peek on the talk pages and have a debate. I have reverted him twice, but he is insisting on adding his stuff. Can you check out the page and do something? There is no end to these hard core guys and new guys nationalistic guys keep popping up.--Anish (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

well, this is simple disruption and should just be reverted, and if necessary, the article can be semi-protected. No sense in wasting time and effort over something like this. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, That was quite fast. I was concerned by 3RR--Anish (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dab, One Anon IP (using different IP’s everytime – 70.72.165.168 (talk · contribs) and 136.159.248.194 (talk · contribs) ) is disrupting Indian religions page once again. He is refusing to discuss anything on the talk pages and pushing his POV. He has been warned many times by Mitsube and me, but to no avail. He is also putting up a lot of nonsense that should be put up in other articles like Hindu Philosophy and not on Indian religions. I request you to semi-protect this page. (Policing Indian religions is a full time job…these jokers keep popping up…….I think as a matter of wikipedia policy, any pages that are repeatedly targeted by Nationalists should be semi-protected).--Anish (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Names of the Irish state

Hello,

You moved the article around yesterday - but it appears that due to an oversight the talk page was not moved correctly, its not at talk:Names of the Irish state. Could you investigate? Thanks. Djegan (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

you are right -- I've fixed it. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing?!!

The name 'Ireland' applies first to the island and second to the state that adminsters five sixths of it. You should not make moves lile this without discussing it first. If Djegan asked you to do so, then surely you should have checked whether he had secured agreement? Please undo this move pending discussion at Wikiproject:Ireland. --Red King (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? I have undone an undiscussed move. Things are now exactly as they were before. Please make a minimal effort to look into things before complaining. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. Please accept my apologies. There have been a number of arbitrary changes in the articles about Ireland and I confess to shooting first and asking questions afterwards. (I shall apologise separately to Djegan). --Red King (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

no problem :) --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Geri lgfx

This guy keeps adding an external link to his cranky nationalist theory about Sumerian being related to Hungarian. His "language comparison" is unusually absurd even for a crackpot theory (just check out his etymology of "angel":)), and he manages to keep the link on Wikipedia, discrediting the project, during long periods before someone reverts it. IMO the only solution is to block him, but I'm not sure how to proceed formally in such a case, and I don't spend so much time on Wikipedia anyway. I figured you might know how to deal with such stuff.--Anonymous44 (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

that would be simply a case for the warning-block cycle. I'll drop him another warning. dab (𒁳) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

SRA question - sort-of

Hi,

Since you're an admin and you're somewhat involved in the SRA page, could you have a look at, and comment on what I've brought up here? There's some more details here, here and my ultimate post is here? I realize I probably approached this incorrectly (particularly my earlier posts when I was rather irritated), but I don't know what to do in situations where the editor is clearly out of line with several policies, refuses to discuss and keeps reverting. I think SRA is affecting my wikiquette and I like an outside opinion and nudge or shove to civility.

Thanks, WLU (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

yes -- it's good advice to stay away from a topic you become aware is "getting to you". I mostly edit topics in which I have no emotional stakes whatsoever, SRA being an example, since I don't care about the topic one way or the other except of a slight feeling of annoyance at the fringy silliness going on. As in, a mild moral outrage over the stupidity of going on about occultist fantasies while there are very real and documented cases of "ritualized child abuse" going on, as in female genital cutting, but hey, that's only in Africa, and it just isn't as thrilling if it isn't "satanic".

As for Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, it's currently a redirect again, but I also see no fundamental problem with making it a standalone article. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was neutral on it, until I actually started reading the sources.

Any suggestions on editors that refuse to engage on the talk page? Criminologist1963 has made many changes but entered to real discussion despite repeated requests (all 6 intermediate revisions are comments from me discussing why the edits were problematic). I've run into it before with other editors (got a block for it once), if I don't revert the wrong version (with deliberate irony) stays up and there's never a discussion of why the page is being reverted. And it's not like it's a content dispute, this is over things like blanking pages and content forking. I'm not quibbling over how to word a source, I see it as avoiding basic guideline problems (WP:BLANK and WP:CFORK for start). If I revert and revert, I get 3RR as well, but I'd like an alternative to reverting when the other editor fails to engage on the talk page.

Of course, "I should quit being a stubborn douche" may be the answer. WLU (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

not at all, Wikipedia couldn't exist without stubborn douches like ourselves.

but don't worry too much about 3RR -- there is no need to get this right within the next 24 hours. Editors who refuse to use the talkpage stand no chance at all, since uninvolved editors will mostly take the side of the party who is presenting a coherent case on talk. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Patience? That's your suggestion? Patience is my enemy!!! I eat patience for breakfast!!!!

Point well taken, thanks. That's the evil of the electronic world - everything always seems of immediate importance. WLU (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent} For the love of God. [31] and [32]. Am I not speaking English? Am I wrong? Could you help? WLU (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Country name etymology

Hi Dieter,

After waiting the 24 hours with no objections to either the name changes I suggested nor the method of determining concensus, I made the changes previously discussed. I have noticed that you have reverted the name change for Britain (name) and Albania (name). Is this because these are the only changes to which you object? Please give me more credit than your comments when reverting displayed; I did indeed read through the lede and article of Albania (name), and the nature of the article leads me to believe that it is something between a disambiguation page and a subarticle of Albania. The bulk of the article is about Albania. The information about the "Caucasian Albania" and the "Scottish Albania" simply indicates that Caucasian Albania and Scotland should be listed on Albania (disambiguation), which they are. The information about those two other uses is already present on the Caucasian Albania and Scotland articles. Having an article like Albania (name) as it currently stands is like having an article called "Washington (name)" and then describing the use of the name Washington as a name for various cities in the United States and accross the world. In this way, the article which should develop would be properly named Name of Albania.

I also noticed that you removed the Names for Germany entry I had placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you feel that a move listed in the "uncontroversial" section is in fact controversial, the appropriate action is to move it to the "controversial" section, not to simply remove it. The reason I believe the Names for Germany move to be uncontroversial is because it only deals with the preposition (from → to). I don't understand how that could be controversial, but if you object, feel free to state your objections after the listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves.

It seems that our dealings in recent days have become somewhat strained. Please understand that I am attempting to do what is best for the project in the best way I know how. I am certainly attempting to put into affect the suggestions and guidance you provide. I hope that our edits will be more mutually satisfying in the future.

Neelix (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

look, I am growing tired of this. You have waited for 24 hours after "suggesting" to move 27 articles, on your own talkpage. How difficult can it be to convey to you that article moves may or may not be controversial, and you'll have no way of knowing unless you inquire on the article talkpage? If you want some sort of centralized discussion for your "standardisation" ideas, try something like a Wikiproject talkpage. First of all, try to explain why you are so eager to "standardise" stuff in the first place. If you just want to get your template to work, just create redirects, nobody is objecting to these. I am sorry, but I cannot be bothered to explain in any greater detail that "the name of Albania" isn't synonymous to "the name Albania". It all depends on whether the article proposes to discuss the name(s) of a certain entity (signifié) or rather a certain name (signifiant). Apart from that, WP:UCS and WP:CONSENSUS. That said, yes, some of your moves are unproblematic. Apparently by coincidence and not because you have actually bothered to check their contents. dab (𒁳) 19:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Church

Thank you for your edits to the church disambiguation page. They look great! ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 09:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Race of the you-know-whos revisited

Race of ancient Egyptians is a hopeless mess these days (if it ever wasn't), so based on a suggestion at the talk page, I'm attempting a complete rewrite at User:Moreschi/ROAE, cutting large chunks of the irrelevant flam with a view to eventually cleaning up the entire topic area. Comments would be appreciated as my rewrite progresses. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

you are a brave man, Moreschi. --dab (𒁳) 14:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus_cylinder#The_Cylinder_as_a_charter_of_human_rights

Sorry to bother you *yet again* but you have previous experience with these kinds of situations and actually take a look at the matter at hand. A few users (their behavior in conjunction with their nationality does not help me maintain "good faith") seem to hold the article hostage to their POV version, either by tag-team reverting and by reporting users for all kinds of violations (3RR, in the past an RFC -though that was long ago but still confirms the general pattern that has gone on for years, resulting in every single editor pushing for a more neutral version to eventually get fed up and leave).

A user has forwarded a more neutral version (which, honestly, simple adds a few crucial lines so I'm not quite sure why these users so vehemently refuse it) in the talk page, which I tried to implement but got "warned but not blocked and should consider this a lucky break" for 3rr (see aforementioned tag-team reverting, this also resulted in getting the page locked). All sorts of WP:SYNTH arguments are made up on the spot to support the current version (which also goes on about Cyrus' "magnanimous character", completely off-topic in a section of the cylinder's interpretation as a "charter of human rights" etc.).

New POV-laden versions, even more ridiculous -in SYNTH, WEASEL and so on- than the current one, are argued as "possible compromises" (a look at the talk page is enlightening). I'm really not sure what to do at this point other than request the help of an admin who has experience in the field of "patriotic editing". Short of just leaving the section as it is, of course. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dbachmann, 3rdAlcove is himself a Greek ultra-nationalist with many obvious POV edits designed to glorify Greek history/civilization at the expense of other ancient civilizations.[33] So for him to call others "nationalist" is like the the pot calling the kettle black. Not sure why he decided to canvass you, but you seem like a fair-minded individual, so I please that you do not take sides in such a hurry based on 3rdAlcove's story, and re-study the whole dispute, and pay attention in particular to my detailed/sourced comment here which deals with 3rdAlcove's preferred version. --CreazySuit (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

well, the Cyrus cylinder article has a problem, and I gave my opinion on its talkpage. I can form my own conclusions regardless of who might have drawn my attention to a dispute. My opinion in this case is that the "human rights" thing has the status of trivia. It may be mentioned, of course, but it is of marginal importance. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 21:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, and I am not claiming that article is perfect. However, the version 3rdAlcove was pushing for, also contains POV assumptions and inaccuracies. I hope that you would take the time to read, and take into consideration, my detailed comment here about the issue. Thanks. --CreazySuit (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dbachmann, per CrazySuit 3rdAlcove is himself a Greek nationalist with many obvious POV edits designed to glorify Greek history/civilization at the expense of other ancient civilizations. I wish you hadn't taken his sides in such a hurry. The story is completely different from what he claims. This user pushes to add the second view on the Cyrus Cylinder but doesn't let anybody add any information on criticism of the second view. This is more WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:WEDONTNEEDIT. He rejects all proposal by User:Rayen and me to add critics of this view because he simply doesn't like it. The second view that he loved and can't stand any criticism is criticized by other scholars and experts on this topic. It seems that it doesn't not appear that much obviously to all users that he is right (Users: Alborz Fallah, Rayen, CrazySuit and me). Moreover, he calls me semi-literate here [34].

I wish admins warn him for violating WP:CIVILITY and his personal attack. No need to mention that he has violated 3rr two times recently. He started edit warring when we were trying to get consensus and discussing the new proposals. I could have added critisism of the second view as well but I prefer waiting until compromise is made. On the other hand this user can't stop POV pushing deleting sections that he doesn't like and violated 3rr for the second time on this page--Larno Man (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The kind of people one has to put up with on wiki (let alone work with them). Advice on how to deal with this kind of POV-warrior -that also hounds your edits (and completely misinterprets them in order to score points)- would be most welcome. Past experience reveals a rather broken system so I'm reluctant to take some kind of action. It's honestly quite frustrating having to remove all sorts of nonsense, even after providing a justification for removing them, and having them reverted immediately even on unrelated articles, where said users feel that they are "getting back at you". (It's refreshing to see them actually add information to articles in order to "get back at" other users, though.) 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the dynamics of these things. I'd still prefer to just discuss the Cyrus cylinder here if it's all the same to you all. dab (𒁳) 09:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, but being wiki-stalked and reverted in completely unrelated articles for no reason (or rather, a WP:POINT one) by the above users does not make for the best discussion environment. Anyhow, I've given my opinion in the talk page. The "arguments" and "revised versions" the particular users have forwarded are pure WP:SYNTH sophistry, my glorifying hyper-nationalism aside. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Africoid sockpuppet

Hi DB; I need your advice on something: There's this one user on the Africoid page that keeps creating these one-off handles which he then uses to make POV edits and to revert other people's work that don't agree with his. I am currently involved in a conflict with his latest handle, a struggle which is not all that dissimilar to your own encounters with the one-off users PhoneyRat and Larsposenaa on the Sub-Saharan Africa and Afrocentrism talk pages. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they're all the same person. They all share similar Afrocentric ideas, approach to discussion, writing style, one-off handles, surprising familiarity around Wikipedia for a new user, etc. And when I accused the Africoid editor of being all of the usernames listed below, he didn't even deny it! Strange behavior, no? At any rate, here are most of the disruptive one-off handles from the Africoid page (though I'm pretty sure there are more): Cobracommanderp7/Outparcels/Forestgomp/Stuffla/Glidesclear. Please let me know what you make of all of this. Soupforone (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG. Checkuser has unearthed two truly massive sockfarms, both running independently of each other. This is going to take a while to sort out. Moreschi (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Results are here. Read with awe :) Moreschi (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider me awed! Soupforone (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me to see what effort some people are prepared to invest in perpetuating their own ignorance. But then the human brain is of course designed to operate Savanna scavangers, not intellectuals, it is much more at ease knowing the Truth than racking itself with tedious objectivity. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

Thought you might be interested in helping out with improving The Lord of the Rings, so I'm letting you know about Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Barefact

Hi, Dieter. I realized that Barefact was blocked for 4 months. I know your and Barefact's pov's on kurgan related topics and also on Turkic alphabets. Yes, Barefact may be an obstinate user, but he contributed much on Turkology related articles and ancient Turkic history. He did a great deal of work on Turkologist (you can see the list from Barefact's user page). For this reason, i consider him as a good contributor. Isn't the block period too long for such a user? I remember you said to warn me in the Barefact related disputes, and if you did so, I could help to compromise/mediate. You're one of the most experienced users in wikipedia and you surely met the cases/disputes worst than that of Barefact's. I shall greatly appreciate if you'd be kind enough to do something to shorten his block period. (P/s: I was unable to edit for a long time, since i terribly injured my shoulder) Kind regards, E104421 (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

the problem was not the shortcomings of his edits, which can be fixed easily enough, but his absolute obstinacy and refusal to listen to reason or to respect Wikipedia policy. I guess that for a shortening of his block, he would need to recognize his behaviour was problematic in the past, and to make some sort of pledge of improving his behaviour. I could then see a way to getting his block time reduced, along with "probation" measures such as 1RR parole or similar.

I am sorry to hear about your shoulder, I hope you get well soon. --dab (𒁳) 07:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Upanishads

Are you aware of any scholars who state that the older Upanishads are discussions on the rituals, mantras and concepts found in the four Vedas? I'm not an expert on them, but from my reading I take it that the Upanishads should not be looked at as exegesis of the Vedas, but as promulgating new ideas. That seems to be the heart of the dispute at Indian religions right now. I have produced one sources explicitly saying that the early Upanishads should be considered part of the shramanic tradition and one source implying it, while the other side hasn't produced anything other than National Geographic saying the opposite. I didn't realize that this is actually a cherished Hindu belief so it might not matter what the sources actually say... Mitsube (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

this hinges on "concepts". The Ups are, of course, not ritualistic, but they do elaborate on 'concepts' of the Vedas. They also do not belong to any given time period, but if we restrict this to the mukhya corpus, we'll find ourselves looking at the period of interest here.

the problem is that "shramana" isn't nearly as well-defined as "vedic". "Shramana" just means "ascetic". In this sense, it may be possible to claim the Ups are "shramanic", even though they are of course indubitably a continuation (and radical reform) of the Vedic tradition. I am not sure I see the problem. Perhaps it is terminological? You seem to be coming from the Buddhist side, and you appear to think that Buddhism and "Shramana" are somehow identical, and an antithesis to "Vedic". --dab (𒁳) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Shramanic separate from and parallel to Vedic, impossible to say which is older. Buddhism an outgrowth of shramanic thought. Upanishads when Brahmins started adopting it. Early Yogic thought also shramanic. Mitsube (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Which of these two versions do you think is better: [35]? Mitsube (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I generally prefer your version, although I could comment on some points individually. --dab (𒁳) 07:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello Dbachmann!

My sincere apologies if you felt insulted by my comments, but I am only trying to show you my opinion. Also, I feel that it was already agreed a while ago that you can't label all Egyptians as Arabs as the Coptic ethnicity is technically an ethnicity of its own—period. And, as Copts are still technically Egyptians, there can be no such reliable source that can label them as Arabs—only Arabic-speaking. I also want to note that I was seeking for a resolution on the talk page as to the Ancient Egyptian section, so let's not ignore that. We don't have time to argue with eachother and, as I sincerely hope that you are aware of it, people have lives to get on with.

Best wishes, ~ Troy (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Troy, if you were paying any attention at all, you would have noted that I am claiming nothing of the kind. Note that we have the Copts article for the "Coptic ethnicity". By "Arabized" I do mean "Arabic-speaking". If I wanted to claim the Egyptians were Arabs (which I do not), I would say "the Egyptians are an Arab ethnic group" without bothering to speak about "Arabization". I wish you success with your life. Bye. --dab (𒁳) 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urreligion

Your feedback at the above afd would be appreciated. Thanks! --MPerel 01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Egyptians" dispute

Hi again. I am terribly sorry if that insulted you. I don't know if you realized that when you accused me of being Zerida's sock "buddy", I felt quite taken aback at that, and so I was simply trying to prove my point that you don't have to be some sort of sock to want to retain some of the history, or at least summarize it, in regards to the ethnicity article.

Also, on Coptic language, I have restored the templates to show that I am willing to improve references as I spot them. I hope you are not still upset at my decisions, views, etc (although I highly doubt that if you hardly even care about the articles themselves other than the quality of the references and so forth). Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I was well aware of the fact that you commented on Zerida's recent sock puppet case for a few days now. To be honest, I don't know what makes a few folks think that I'm Zerida's "buddy" or assume that I can't think independantly of him. Careful, there. You don't want to make incorrect allegations, even if it seems believable. In fact, if you watch carefully, you might notice that I have already filed two sock puppet cases in recent weeks. Just a reminder. ~ Troy (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You have not insulted me at all, I am not sure what you mean. Also, I have no reason to believe you're anyone's sock. --dab (𒁳) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Just checking. ~ Troy (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

section in heart unintelligible to me

I don't for the life of me understand your addition to heart (anthr):

This thread of intensification is still spinning out for a long epoch with the Christian, Jewish, Islamic and Eastern mystics: about the new millennium of the after-Christian era Al-Ghazali speaks of the inside, which he names soul, spirit and heart: "The inside is your true nature." [5]

Maybe you could spell it out a bit more... --Aniish72 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

could you please at least state which article you are talking about? --dab (𒁳) 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sangh Parivar

As far as I know it is a consensus among neutral academics that Sangh Parivar is a Hindu chauvinist organization and it is mentioned in the lead. But the edit is being reverted repeatedly. Could you have a look if you are interested in it. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:RIG G-172.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:RIG G-172.jpg, which you've sourced to http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/kelt/gallbs.htm. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern Celts

Hiya Dbachmann, would you mind taking a look at the article Modern Celts please? User MacRusgail has made several edits that seem to be unconstructive/POV. There are too many separate edits for me to revert without falling foul of 3RR. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Assyria

Dear Dbachman, I saw this flickr image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/shadowgate/346666569/ and was wondering 1) what it was? and 2) whether Wikipedia would be better off with this image on Commons for everyone to use? The creative commons license allows it to be placed on Commons...but I don't want to upload something people don't need. Since I don't know what it is, I don't know how to catalogue it. It is from the Gulbenkian museum and looks Assyrian to me. I think it is either an Assyrian king or god. What is your subjective opinion here..and would it be a good image for the article on this person or god? Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

it's a typical Assyrian alabaster stele, this one dates to the 9th century BC (Assurnasirpal II), found in the Nimrud palace. It depicts what is known as a "winged genie"[36]. Acquired by the Museu Calouste Gulbenkian in 1920.[37] Since it proved identifiable, I do think it would make a useful encyclopedic addition to our Assyria articles. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Mass-produced? The Met has one, too,[38], and the Brooklyn Museum even has two of them. Lupo 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, we need a winged genie article. They are the iconographical predecessors of the Western "angels" (via the Greeks). Probably also of the Persian Faravahar. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Nevertheless, the similarity between these four representations are striking. They look identical. Lupo 07:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

well, they are pieces of the same frieze in the Nimrud palace. These colonial era "tomb raider" archaeologists just took a single work of art apart and scattered it over museums all over the planet. If the Nimrud frieze was put back together, I suppose it would show a number of identical or near-identical genies grouped around the scene. --dab (𒁳) 07:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab and John Michell

Hi dab. I don't think we've spoken before, so nice to meet you. I'd like to ask you not to respond in kind to Sage's latest posting on the John Michell talk page. I'm trying to convince him to remove it, and to join the adopt a user program, and take a bit of heat away from the page. I'd like to make it clear that I think you are a good editor, and that he has the passion to become a good editor. Also, I'm not saying you can't respond or do anything you like, I just thought that in order to be even handed I should ask you both to stick to the moral high ground, without any thought as to past behaviour. I hoep you understand what I'm trying to do, and I hope it works. All the best Verbal chat 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughtfulness, Verbiage -- I won't interrupt your attempts at domestication. This isn't a serious dispute for me, I'm just having a little fun, and I'm happy to stand back. Regards, dab (𒁳) 15:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi just a note to apologise for the confusion on the talk page. I didn't mean that it is irrelevant to the article, I should have said the Nazi conclusion would be OR, and I didn't mean to imply that is what you were getting at. Sorry!I'm for the inclusion of details of this pamphlet (with the usual caveats) Verbal chat 17:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

please, I was just being a little facetious in making a point. There is no problem. The article is doing fine too. --dab (𒁳) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, the edit summary made me think I'd annoyed you - not my intention. Cheers! Verbal chat 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Winged genie

Dear Dbachman, Here is the picture of the Assyrian winged genie: Image:Assyrian winged genie from Nimrud.jpg. Those other images on flickr which Lupo mentioned were indeed great images but their license was not free--either all rights reserved or for NC use. The person who took the picture placed all his collection of Gulbenkian pictures under the creative commons 2.0 license...which was kind of him. I only placed this other flickr image by him on Commons: Image:Gulbenkian Egypt5.jpg. May you make good use of the genie. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you! --dab (𒁳) 07:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Leoboudv (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "History section"

Hey, Dbachmann. Just to let you know, I'm a little busy on other things at the moment. However, I did reply on the talk page. Hopefully things should go smoothly from here onwards. Ciao, ~ Troy (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheraman Perumal

I know you mostly do Vedic, but the above Keralan monarch - according to Western scholars - has been split in two for sectarian reasons, unsourced, repeatedly. Interested in your opinion...Redheylin (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Scholars both Indian (Kutty, Nayar) and Western (JC Morris, Swiderski), have explained that "cheraman perumal" is a title not a name and that it refers to different kings in modern-day Kerala in India. A quick look at redheylin's talk page should illustrate that I provided numerous sources in return for one source that he seems to not even glanced at.Pectore^talk 06:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

category redirect

I noticed that you were an administrator here. Could you tell me how to change the location of a category? I am hoping to change Category:Saivite religious figures to Category:Shaivite religious figures alon the lines of Category:Shaivism. Pectore^talk 06:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the move, but you don't need an admin for this, you can just place a note at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem

To anyone interested, please review List of oldest continuously inhabited cities -- I am taking the hardcore WP:NPOV approach to territorial disputes there, the way that got us a stable Kosovo article. I find it depressing that unrelated articles such as this one are affected by contemporary politics at all, but since this is the case, I insist on extreme neutrality. Let me know what you think. Is "Jerusalem" a special case in which somehow everyone tacitly agrees that the UN is wrong? But according to whom? To my mind this is extremely simple. East Jerusalem according to the UN is illegally claimed by the state of Israel, and the fact that nobody is actually doing something about it doesn't affect the de jure status. But I may be out of line. I am simply not amused to be called an antisemite for sticking to NPOV. --dab (𒁳) 05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it quite amusing that someone who has already violated 3RR on that page, by edit warring and reverting 3 different editors, comes to lecture me about edit warring, for my single revert. Don't you? Have you read this article yet? NoCal100 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3RR, and being outnumbered by partisan editors doesn't make my dedication to WP:NPOV any less commendable. I fail to see any irony in this. --dab (𒁳) 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You have violated the 3RR, by making 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. If you don't see the irony in edit warring with 3 different editors, and then complaining about another editor allegedly edit warring you really do need to read the article I recommended. NoCal100 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

pray post the diffs to the alleged four reverts, and I'll immediately self-revert and apologize. If you cannot post the four diffs to four reverts, I suppose it would be for you to apologize, but I'm not holding my breath. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[39],[40],[41],[42]. In addition, you are also currently edit warring on Demographics of Egypt (2 reverts labeled as such in the edit summary, NO discussion on the Talk page), and have been blocked for 3RR violations three times. I'm not looking for your apology - just get off your moral high horse, and stop lecturing others about behavior you've been guilty of yourself. NoCal100 (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How is your fourth diff a "revert"? You cannot even tell a revert from the addition of an inline tag? You should pipe down. My "moral high horse" is based on my defending WP:NPOV. Have you heard of this? It's core Wikipedia policy. Please try to find out what this project is even about before you bother spilling more nonsense on my talkpage. I am "lecturing" you because you clearly violated Wikipedia core policy. I am not lecturing about some rule you have not even violated. Sheesh. If you want to discuss Jerusalem, go to Talk:Positions on Jerusalem. If you want to discuss the Demographics of Egypt, go to Talk:Demographics of Egypt. After you have looked into my edits, you may comment on what you think is wrong with them. My reverts are to blatant violations of Wikipedia policy. Another admin would just issue blocks instead. But you cannot know this, can you, because you (a) haven't looked into policy, (b) haven't looked into the actual edits, and (c) cannot tell the nature of an edit if it is shoved in your face. Your edit nicely fits this attitude. You just "know" that "East Jerusalem is in Israel", yes? Even when the link to Positions on Jerusalem is shoved right into your face, stating that the UN has clearly stated half a dozen times over that that's simply not the case. Ffs, if you think you can treat the opinion of one state as the "truth" against the opinion of 191 states, you clearly have some difficulty undestanding "neutral point of view", don't you think? Or maybe "difficulty" is the wrong term here, since you obviosly never even attempted the feat. NoCal100, why are you even here? --dab (𒁳) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

so what you are saying is that you indeed edit warred, making 3 reverts, but gamed the system by tagging in the fourth edit, to convey the same meaning (i.e - that Jerusalem is not in Israel). I am sure you are aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement, and that you could be blocked for making "just" 3 reverts. I am not interested in Demographics of Egypt, so I have no plans to go to Talk:Demographics of Egypt, or look into your edits there - it is not necessary for me to do that in order to see that you are edit warring there, too. You appear to be a serial edit warrior, having been blocked for that violation thrice already. Get off your high horse and stop edit warring. NoCal100 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am saying you are out of line by coming here and raising bogus complaints against me. I have followed proper procedure by explaining my edits several times over, and finally, when it became clear the problem wouldn't go away, placing an inline tag. This was correct procedure. You otoh are wasting my time without contributing anything. You also still fail to recognize that Wikipedia has content policies. --dab (𒁳) 06:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mesolithic

Hello. This article has been substantially enlarged using a single source by Rokus01. Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact the material is just copied and pasted from the deleted Broad Homeland hypothesis. It seems to be based on a Ph.D. by Jutta Paulina de Roever, not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you are soapboxing. I don't know what or who you are, maybe I once met one of your sockpuppets and you did not like me? Or, being a Swiss, you applied for the Swiss Guard? Well, Dab is not the pope and you are not a "science editor": obviously you are not aware that approved university dissertations are peer reviewed by definition. Your editing behaviour and personal fights are coming close to vandalism and I will have this behaviour denounced if you continue this way. Rokus01 (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian religions

There has been a lot of IP vandalism there recently. The anons refuse to use the talk. Also could you please comment at my new proposal at the bottom as a way to avoid this IP vandalism long-term? Thanks! Mitsube (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PCT madness

Yea, his contributions get more surreal by the day. I can't work out whether he's the same individual as Special:Contributions/71.201.241.2, who was also keen on Neanderthal-HS interbreeding and PCT. And of course Rokus then suddenly reappears after a long absence. I assume this weird need to believe in both Neanderthal interbreeding and PCT is some sort of revival of the "Aryan master race" theory, but I don't know where it is coming from. Paul B (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I had the same thought -- that these two IPs are the same. The English, manner of editing, and attitude are very similar. TimidGuy (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

the IP should just be blocked. I mean come on, this guy would be blocked on sight on pretty much any wiki project. I know en-wiki prides itself with its lenience, but this is going too far. I'd do it myself, but I have enough trolls just waiting for an excuse to pounce at me from out of the woodwork. Among these Rokus01, of course, this chap is a marvel all unto himself. At least he is intelligent and articulate, which makes it at least possible to interact with him in a coherent manner, but I think that by now we've probably seen all tricks he is capable of, and trying to deal with him will become increasingly repetitive and thus boring. As for the weird "Aryan-Dutch Neanderthal hybrid" ideology, I guess this is some sort of Nouvelle Droite meets "Folkish" Neopaganism (Metagenetics). At least I imagine that the Neanderthal Man is for Koenraad Logghe types what the Kennewick Man is to Stephen McNallen, but this is just speculation, I have no grounds for positively associating Rokus with this scene, his worldview just happens to dovetail nicely with theirs. Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) used to be a Dutchman of a similar feather. Rokus is problematic not because of his beliefs, whatever they are, but because of his actual editing behaviour. People can believe anything they like as long as they stay in line with the project's aims (as illustrated splendidly, for example, by Gnostrat (talk · contribs)). dab (𒁳) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't compare me with Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) since to my opinion his attitudes and believes resemble yours and not mine. I can remember you even defended him before he was blocked. Rokus01 (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

well, his attitude towards me was similar to yours. Which is probably a good sign. Also, I don't remember ever agreeing with him on anything. His "opinions" seemed to be limited to "the Dutch rule", so I don't really know what you may be referring to. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated the humor

Got a good laugh out of this.[43] I hate to laugh at this IP's expense, but it's unfortunate that he's been so aggressive and surly. TimidGuy (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah I know, I lost my countenance there for a minute. Sorry. --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Now trolling elsewhere

I presume this IP (76.16.176.177) is the subject of this thread. It's now moved on to trolling at Hungarian prehistory [44]. --Folantin (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

List of countries

Gueten Abe, this just to let you know that your proposal on the talk page of the List of countries, now almost lost within much hotter (and, may I say, often fruitless) recent debates, has finally received a comment from me after nearly 4 months of indifference of other editors. I'd be ready to cooperate with you on such a change (and afterwards export it to the German and French versions). Clpda (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm intrigued by the character you use to link to your talk page. I could not find it in my Unicode table, when I copy it in Excel to see its code (with a function I developed, CODE still being restricted to 255) it transforms itself into a framed question mark (D808) instead of the 012/013 initially displayed. I thought I knew a lot about character sets but you definitely can learn me something! Clpda (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

see Unicode cuneiform :) it's the DIB sign, also known as DAB (U+12073 wikt:𒁳). it stands for "to grasp", but is also identical to UDU "sheep". I think you're the first person to ask me this. dab (𒁳) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answer! (I definitely misread one of the figures 012/073 instead of 013 but that's not the point). I see I must download a more recent version of Unicode. Windows (even Vista, which I [must] use) apparently still cannot transfer (i.e. copy & paste) characters from this section of Unicode (which is somewhat acceptable since the display cannot yet be explicit, there is a delay in updating fonts and we have to live with that). My Excel functions were also useless since they work for the 1st pane only. If these functions might however be useful to you, just drop me an e-mail and I'll send you them. As for the signification of the cuneiform U+12073, this immediately reminded me of Raining Stones where a sheep is grasped, no doubt! ;-) And for being the first to ask, well... probably 'the others' could find out by themselves. Best regards Clpda (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

the "grasp" and "sheep" signs aren't related in origin, they just came to look the same by the Neo-Assyrian period :) --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Zurich (umlaut)

Hello :) I don't understand why Zürich in English is spelled with an -ü. The official English spelling doesn't have the Umlaut and even though it needs some uniformity with the text, it is, to my sense, pointless to write articles with spelling mistakes. Lucerne, Berne and Zurich have in English the same spelling as in French. What is therefore the point to have articles with spelling mistakes? Thank you and have a good day :) (Ngagnebin (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)) :)

you want to post this to Talk:Zürich. Ideally after familiarizing yourself with previous debate on this very point, at Talk:Zürich/archive1. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pannonia

Hello Dbachmann, it seems recently some Hungarian contributor or contributors have gotten over-enthusiastic or something and have created several articles which should be merged or deleted. What is their ratonale for having Pannonia and Pannonian basin before the Hungarians? I'm interested in having the Pannonian basin before the Hungarians article deleted, because Pannonia should be sufficient. Before I nominate it, I thought I would open a discussion about it. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community seems to be almost anti-deletionist sometimes...so probably Pannonian basin before the Hungarians will be merged into (redirected to) Pannonia. That would be okay. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Contributors in favor of the article will object primarily because Pannonia kinda leaves out some regions to the east of the Roman province; however that can also be discussed in Pannonia. There is something hokey about "Pannonian basin before the Hungarians". The name of the article, the frame of reference. How much material cannot be covered in Pannonia? Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pannonia is a provice of the Roman Empire. "Pannonian basin before the Hungarians" has a much wider scope, including all of Prehistoric Hungary from the Paleolithic to the 9th century. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Winged genie

• Comment One of the three images you used for the article on WG was deleted for failing the flickr bot review. But I notice someone just added this other image from Yale: Image:Assyrian Genie - Yale University Art Gallery.jpg It wasn't me, that's for sure as I'm interested in Egyptology. You can place it in your gallery of images for the article if you wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quest Books

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Quest Books, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder Pt. 3...? 4?

I have to admit, I can't say I didn't expect this to happen. It seems that the new version (replacing the one under the locked article which, as I said on the talk page, begins to look much better in comparison) tries to counter all sorts of "hypernationalism" pushed by editors like myself. Pursuing this is frankly getting too aggravating: is there anything that can be done about the section in question, specifically, or the particular disruptive editors, generally, or should I just forget about it? I understand you're busy with other, ideologically-heated articles but some advice would be helpful. Thanks once again. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a recentism. It's about a Spiegel article, and angry refutations of stuff the Spiegel article got wrong. It doesn't, in my opinion, deserve to be discussed in the article about the Cyrus cylinder. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The problem is that some people either don't get it or simply don't want to. Discussion, and even compromise, mean nothing. (most of the "arguments" brought forward had nothing to do with the CC itself...) 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, some of this may be of interest for Cyrus own article, but it should be based on serious literature, not angry refutations of newspaper articles. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Stone Hindutva round 2

FYI, our Hindutva friends (is there a collective noun for that?) are back in action on Black Stone in the shape of User:Thebuddah - you might want to keep an eye on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

a proponent of political "Hinduness" is a Hindutvavadin :) --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder

Since when are POLITICAL EDITORIALS by right-wing Der Spiegel and neocon mouthpiece Daily Telegraph considered to be authoritative sources in historical matters in Wikipedia, and their theories merit inclusion on Wikipedia? --CreazySuit (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not, I am not sure what you mean. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you making blind sweeping reverts of three other editors' improvements? I, alone, spent 4 hours NPOVing the page, providing a rational for each and everyone of my edits. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

you had reverted to the old representation of this as a "dispute", while it is in fact just an online fad. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

dab, while I agree with you about Der Spiegel and the re-actions to it, you're placing the blame in the wrong place. The page was in a decent shape, before a throw-away sock puppet inspired by Der Spiegel's "fatwa" decided to declare "Jihad" on Cyrus cylinder citing Der Spiegel, and a certain Greek ultra-nationalist stalker who has thinks the world begins and ends with Greece, and never misses an opportunity to expose the "evil east" and the "Barbarian" enemies" of his super civilized "Greek forefathers", decided to jump in, from out of nowhere , just to revert the page to the SPA account... Anyways, I have no problem with your version as long as the obvious POV/subjective lines like "The text is a propaganda document justifying..." are not added to the article. As per Larno Man's rebuttals and your concerns about it, I would propose attributing them to original author or authors as a compromise, something like "Kaveh Farokh says...". Please Let me know what you think. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

blame or no blame, my approach is to throw out both Spiegel and anti-Spiegel stuff as WP:UNDUE at this point. I am not sure what you mean, the actual text is, of course, Iron Age propaganda, viz., Cyrus praising himself as the new big man. This chap Kaveh Farokh is on some sort of patriotic crusade, and I do not think we should cite him at all. --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did not add Farokh, I did not even make a revert of your edits, I only removed Der Spiegel and the re-actions to it , as well as the line "The text is a propaganda document justifying..." which to me is subjective and POV. Richard Fereye for example would disagree with that statement, so it's not a universal belief. As per Kaveh, while he's a bit of sensationalist, he's still a published author and an academic. By attributing Kaveh's criticism to him, we leave it to the reader to evaluate it. I am only proposing this, so we can reach a working compromise. The article, as it is, is your version with a few minor modifications, and if we resolved the Kaveh issue, there shouldn't be any more problems. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

no it isn't. It is a statement within the context of the 6th century BC, not current affairs. This wouldn't be at all controversial if the Iranian nationalists didn't make noise about it. This noise can go to Iranian nationalism for all I care, but the article on the document should focus on the 6th century BC. Kaveh has published academically, yes. We can cite his academic publications, sure, but this doesn't mean we can cite the patriotic noise he is making online. dab (𒁳) 16:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the word propaganda has POV connotations. Also, the term "sack" is not correct since it was actually the residents who overthrew Nabonidus. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

whatever. What, if not propaganda, do you suggest the document contains? "Bragging"? "Self-glorification"? Is that less POV in your book? --dab (𒁳) 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that I am trying to work with you here. The word propaganda is obviously problematic, I would suggest leaving out any such POVish adjectives/descriptions altogether, "sacking" is also inaccurate, as I already explained above. I would suggest something more descriptive, less subjective, like "The text of the cylinder denounces Nabonidus as impious and contrasting the victorious Cyrus as pleasing to Marduk" --CreazySuit (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

cool, I am perfectly open to rephrasings along these lines. I am in no way insisting on any precise phrasing, things can always be tweaked (as long as the tweaking doesn't imply weasling or undue suggestion). --dab (𒁳) 05:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked and expanded the article more or less along the lines that you suggested a few days ago - your views on the talk page would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's an easy mistake to make. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this not Original Research ?

Is this [45]not OR ? This term is used only in one nation, and to justify an article on it sections on other countries are added. Your thoughts ? Haphar (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted most of it. The lead is wrong. I've put a link to Google books on the talk page. It's probably ok for an article (title ok?) as there are some good sources, but it was mainly OR and is still not referenced to the RS that exist. I see the term has been used applying to the Middle East. Doug Weller (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the article makes better sense now. Haphar (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fritz Schachermeyer

I just wanted to check and perhaps correct/expand the Fritz Schachermeyer article, only to find that it doesn't exist yet (nor on dewiki). Anyway, do you have an opinion whether articles giving Schachermeyer as reference and use him as source should be given an extra check. E.g. de:Ägäische Sprachen. --Pjacobi (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard of him, but he seems to be a perfectly regular historian and University professor, at Vienna from 1952[46]. dab (𒁳) 06:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So I think we need an article on him. Unfortunately I only excerpted some points from a good article in Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsgeschichte 25, not enough to write the article from scratch.

In short he was the Austrian (and less important) version of Rasse-Günther. That he got the Vienna professorship post-war is both a miracle and a scandal. His research was judged to be speculative -- by the most well-meaning commentators.

--Pjacobi (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

well, ok, let's just create a stub then. Never research anything without leaving a note in article space somewhere, otherwise you'll just have to do it again. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. And now I see, I got irritated by a common misspelling, or inconsistent spelling -- it seems it is Schachermeyr or even Schachermayr and a dewiki article is at de:Fritz Schachermeyr. --Pjacobi (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request

I see you're around, not sure if Moreschi is, could you take a look at [47]? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have CU, but I think anyone can do a request. Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious this is SageMab. I will just semiprotect the article. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess I can make a request with the argument it appears he is trying to make it look like there is greater support for one position than it is? I know you need a valid argument before anyone will do it.

I must be doing something good, I've had my first vandal attack on my user page! Doug Weller (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rktect

Are you familiar with this editor (banned from work on Metrology. He's active again inserting a lot of OR in articles such as Battle of Kadesh and Exodus related stuff. I've reverted a lot of it, but I expect he'll be back. I presume this doesn't belong on the Fringe NB? I've also found repeated problems at Adam's Bridge, I hope I'm handling that one ok also, had to do a lot of reverts on linked articles. I can understand the desire to call it something else, but Google Books and Scholar show Adam's Bridge as the usual name with no popular alternatives. Doug Weller (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

this (Rktect) one is really far out Doug. Only touch it when in a mood for surrealism. The Adam's Bridge case is just a matter for semiprotection. --dab (𒁳) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

He's put a lot of OR in various articles. Doug Weller (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Greek dialects}}

Hi, good idea templating that legend, thanks! Of course, we again have to deal with obsessions regarding our favourite trümmersprache. This [48] okay with you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

sure. we could also add some template syntax to allow choosing between the 4th and the 5th century version. The problem is, of course, that there are lots of schemes, all slightly different, and there is no compelling reason to pick Woodard in particular. This doesn't matter to those who know about the topic anyway, but it's a big deal to the clueless nationalist who just wants to see his place painted in some particular colour. And we both know Wikipedia gets more traffic from the latter type. --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Zacharie Mayani

Hi, I was upset that the redirect you added has effectively erased any mention of him. Even if you all regard him as a crackpot, there should be some mention of him somewhere! Surely his ideas are no stranger than the Semitic hypothesis, which does get a mention (2 paras, actually)! If you want to keep the redirect, please take a look at my suggested update for Origin of the Albanians - following the "principle of least astonishment"! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect However, what I would really like to see is the original article reinstated and updated. Thanks. Jpaulm (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the best things is to redirect him to the article on Etruscan Language, and add a section under Speculative Relationships, as he is not the only writer trying to establish a link with Albanian.... You imply (I think) that he wrote a book on the origin of the Albanians - do you have the ISBN? Thanks. Jpaulm (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Vikings thank ye

Apparently, one of the core principles of Wikipedia is that the Viking article must go to pieces every few months. Thanks for cleaning it up! Kindest regards, AlphaEta 20:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

time for a WP:VIKING policy page? "The Viking article must be taken apart and rebuilt at least once every 100 days." --dab (𒁳) 20:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:RFPP

Anonymous editor seeks unprotection of your Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the anon editor. User talk protection should only be done in dire circumstances, and for as short a time as possible. Almost 2 months is way too long. -Royalguard11(T) 02:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

why? I believe you need five edits before you can edit here. I see no reason why anyone should need to talk to me so urgently that it doesn't bear doing lousy five edits to the project first. Also see explanation at top of page. Look: I ennforce policy at a lot of nationalist hotspot. Any anon dying to drop me a message here likely just wants to rant at me. --dab (𒁳) 05:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on this, but you could create a separate Talk page just for anons. Compare Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts, which is open to anyone during the times AN is semi-protected. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

my point is that there isn't an issue that needs to be addressed. if there was, I would fix it. As it is, you are just reacting to trolling. This is what the troll wants, don't do it please. Try to WP:UCS. --dab (𒁳) 06:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, autoconfirmation requires four days and ten edits. So an IP user who wants to ask you a question has to register for an account, wait four days, and make ten edits just to leave a message on your talk page. The guideline on user pages says, in regards to user talk pages: "In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project." I would ask you to consider that importance and how the collegiality of the project is affected by semiprotecting your talk page. Powers ^T 12:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• the paragraph you cite concerns "protection". This is indeed a last resort, and I have never protected my talkpage. Please be aware that semiprotection and protection are 'completely different things, even though called by a similar term and accessed by the same button. This is for historical reasons, semiprotection being introduced only around 2005 (I believe). Semiprotection has nothing to do with full protection in terms of effect and I am flabbergasted how even the arbcom is capable of confusing the two. --dab (𒁳) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll have to agree with those who've commented above, asking you to remove protection. Last I checked, nobody is required to register an account, and indefinite semi-protection should not be used on talk pages (especially a talk page with so little history of IP disruption). Please reduce protection. - auburnpilot talk 13:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • you still fail to point out a reason. But you can make this into a lengthy WP:ANI thread, which will end in shouting matches, wheel wars and general excitement if that's the sort of thing you think Wikipedia is for. I'll be away writing encyclopedic articles in the meantime. Also, congratulations to the anon troll who manages to spam my talkpage by proxy. Well done. Obviously, I am not going to wheel war over this. If an admin feels they have a call to unprotect my talkpage, I'll leave it unprotected until the next incidence of anon vandalism, at which point I'll just semiprotect it anew. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it may be time for you to reread the protection policy, which states (in reference to indefinite semiproection), "User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user after vandalism". As you have stated, " If an admin feels they have a call to unprotect my talkpage, I'll leave it unprotected" I will unprotect. - auburnpilot talk 14:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

great, and I'll chalk you up as one of the growing number of admins who prefer to harass good users over helping clean up the pedia. You have truly shown your allegiance and good judgement here by bravely standing up to veteran admins on a disruptive power trip. Time to show this dab character he doesn't WP:OWN the pedia, starting with his own talkpage. Wikipedia is designed as an ochlocracy, where random anon trolls have exactly the same rights as veteran encyclopedists, and where all povs are equal. We finally need to get rid of the elitist bastards who made our life complicated with this silly insistence on "encyclopedicity", whatever that is in a postmodern world where every IP has its own truth. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If by "the growing number of admins who prefer to harass good users" and "veteran admins" you mean that I happily ensure those admins who've been here for so long they believe they are above policy, actually follow policy, yes that's me. Best of luck. - auburnpilot talk 14:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

excellent -- the "Wikipedia auto-immunity" effect I've bemoaned for so long now has a face! I'll be quoting you. Strictly in sarcastic contexts, of course. If you'll now go through my log and second-guess the protections I issued over the past months, I am sure Ararat arev (talk · contribs), Hkelkar (talk · contribs), Barefact (talk · contribs) and friends will be delighted. Oh wait, you've never heard of these gentlemen. I can see how that would make letter-not-spirit decisions so much easier. --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether you believe you are above policy or you were simply playing a game (as you've stated below), neither is appropriate. But hey, you get to play the role of the martyr from now on, so not all is lost. I certainly hope you exercise better judgment in the future. - auburnpilot talk 15:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been both playing a game and a martyr. My judgement is excellent, but since I've only commented, not taken action, I am not sure what you mean. Sorry AuburnPilot, this is sort of going over your head. I am sure you are a good admin, but you are missing the context here. You are demonstrating an attitude I have been discussing at length before. This is just a case study, and not an attack against you personally. Although I do make fun of you. If I couldn't do that, I'd have walked away in frustration over the omnipresent stupidity long ago. So, in a real way, what you label "inappropriate behaviour" is in fact a means of expert retention. Many intelligent people would leave if they weren't amused by the less than brilliant ongoings on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Dieter, don't mess with the New Model Admin corps. What could possibly be suspicious about an anonymous IP demanding your talk page should be unprotected immediately as his first edit? --Folantin (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've refused to comply to the anon's stern demands precisely to see how long it would take for some admin to reprimand me, and who it would be unprotecting the page (total time: 3:33 hours). I had no doubt it would happen. A man must be allowed to have some fun with the Wikipedia admining internal dynamics :) dab (𒁳) 14:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3:33 hours? The jobsworths are really slacking today. I hope Mr Anon IP gets an apology for having to wait so long. --Folantin (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

indeed. So, Mr. 122.105.145.188 (talk · contribs), I am now awaiting your portentous message. --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

in the opinion of Royalguard11...

Anytime a users starts to talk about conspiracies against them they have lost the fight. As an admin you should know better then this. Being an admin does not afford you extra rights. Don't act like a cop who's being investigated by IA.

And in case you missed the memo, every user has the exact same rights here and we are to assume good faith until otherwise proven. Just because you've been here a long time doesn't make you special. All you've demonstrated to us is that you like to go on power trips and if someone questions you about it then they're just an ambulance chaser. Don't play the victim card. Our "allegiance" is to the community at large and to the encyclopedia, not to any one person or group. What you've done is not harmless, it is against both policy and the spirit of the community. There are rules that every single person must follow, and that includes everyone from the clueless newbie to Jimbo himself. You're opinion/experience/veterancy does not outweigh community policy. -Royalguard11(T) 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you admin Royalguard11. I will fondly remember your words. Just, out of interest, what are you talking about? Did anyone mention a conspiracy? Or does your comment bear any other relation, however remote, to this section? At all? Or did you just feel like weighing in somewhere righteously? My talkpage is wide open to any comment you may feel like adding. It is indeed wide open now, and I will listen to your grievances with wikilove, wikifaith and wikihope. After all, that's what I'm here for. Caring about actual "articles" is so four years ago. --dab (𒁳) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR is an unfortunate necessity. It seems to complicate even simple matters as inexperienced users find it and take it as their bible. Yet we need to have it so that our policies may be fluid and so we can react in situations we cannot foresee. But I think you need to look in the mirror more.

You told me that all things should benefit the encyclopedia, which they should, therefore I shouldn't concentrate on something like this mishap. But you refuse to look at your own decision. Protecting your talk page may help in the short term (by not being distracted by rants ect), but can only harm in the long term. In the last almost 2 months you have prevented communication between yourself and every anon and new user. How do you know they didn't have something to say that could have benefited the project? What if they catch a mistake you made (hypothetically) and want to tell you, only to find you don't care about what they have to say? What if a new user wants some guidance or has a question for you? You refuse to help them.

Communication is the key to a community such as Wikipedia. As an admin, it is imperative that any and all users and anons are able to easily communicate with you, and a user talk page is the easiest way for any user. It not as important as NPOV, but if you shut down all the lines of communication you have hundreds of people inefficiently working towards the same goal we can get to faster and more efficiently together. -Royalguard11(T) 01:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I know. Trust me, I am not an inexperienced user. And I don't see IAR as an "unfortunate necessity", I see it as the expression of the fact that the rules are to serve the project, not vice versa. The problem is not with inexperienced users, but with experiened users with an apparatchik mentality that inadvertently places rules over aims. The answers to your concerns regarding my talkpage are answered right at the top of this page, now struck out (you hadn't read that, I presume). They are not realistic. Anons communicate on article talkpages, and this is where I do communicate with them all the time. I am talking to you because I feel it may benefit the project, since you are already an admin, if you stop to think about these things. I know "veterancy" doesn't give me rights, but you should appreciate it gives me perspective. That's not just veterancy in terms of "more than four years", but also in terms of "far beyond 100,000 edits", and not because I go on categorization sprees. I've seen the long-term development of the most hairy disputes on Wikipedia, and the long-term effects of bad admin judgement. I've seen our best editors walk away because some redneck admin stuck to the red tape and helped the trolls. I came to the conclusion that the main danger to Wikipedia is not disruption or vandalism, but misguided bureaucratic zeal in best faith. It is undisputed that this entire section is the product of an obvious case of trolling, your hypothetical newbies that want my help so badly notwithstanding. Think about it. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dang! You think it was a troll? And here I've been waiting to see what was so important that the Anon user wanted your page unprotected. Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

damn you Doug, it was you! I'll drag your sorry ass to CU! I'll flaunt your pathetic attempt at becoming a sleeper admin by relentless campaigning! I'll expose the cabal and save Wikipedia! Jimbo Wales will finally love me! (starts foaming at the mouth and falls over backward) --dab (𒁳) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's as bad talking to you as talking to a politician. Ignore the remarks and instead deflect the conversation into something that puts you in a better light. Veterancy does not excuse you from having to explain yourself. It does not place you above criticism, which you seem to have a real hard time taking. Before you struck it out, you basically were telling people "You're not good enough to talk to me, now go make 10 edits". You created an artificial obstacle, yet you still refuse to believe you could remotely possibly be in the wrong. How can I see that? Because you note that people can now talk to you courtesy of some other admin who stepped in, not because you are allowing them to. -Royalguard11(T) 18:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you bothered to look back at the history of this talk page, and the delightful trolling performed by passing IPs and just-registered accounts? Or are you just assuming that Dbachmann is an arrogant wiki-aristocrat? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What Akhilleus said. IIRC the reason I have this talk page listed is I once spent a morning helping Dab protect it against repeated troll attacks. This is the kind of delightful experience you get to enjoy if you're an admin who tries to sort out the national and ethnic feuding on Wikipedia and maintain neutrality in mainspace. Of course, most admins don't bother with such trivial matters so it's hardly surprising they are unaware of the problem. --Folantin (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I love the concept of Dbachmann as an 'arrogant wiki-aristocrat.' I can picture that as a new userbox... EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I can take the aristocrat (in the etymological meaning, "meritocrat"), but I can't take the politician. Me, the most unpolitical of Wikipedians. I loathe Wikipolitics, and Wikipolitics is all I see Rg11 indulging in here. I disregard politics and try to get the job done, i.e., to fix the article. We need more admins who do that, and less politicians. I'll happily trade ten arrogant wiki-aristocrats for any wikipolitician if arrogance means arrogantly improving the project. I also can't take the implication that I am not "explaining myself". Not after spending 20 minutes of my life pointing out the obvious to "uninvolved admin" Royalguard11. you note that people can now talk to you courtesy of some other admin who stepped in is a surreal joke. Nobody is talking to me that couldn't talk to me all along. Rg11 just never bothered to talk encyclopedic matters with me, not until it took his fancy to stop by for some wikilawyering. Rg11, care for a bet? How about you estmiate how long it will take before I get the first bona fide anon comment on this page. You may also estimate how many anon vandalizations of this page will precede that historic moment. I'll notify you of the results (If your account turns out to be still active at that point in the future -- don't hold your breath). --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've finally found a reason tucked up in a large speech of nothing. It's obvious that new editors and anon shouldn't be trusted with something as important as the Holy Wikipedia. It's obvious you're not going to change that opinion. I'm sorry if I've wasted your precious wiki-time. I wouldn't want to interfere with the ultra-special admins after all. -Royalguard11(T) 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (sorry, that's me forgetting to log in)

• Interestingly, a cursory review of my archives reveals very limited bona fide IP edits, apart from various socks of people I've just banned or am about to kick out the door. And I haven't attracted half the troll-ire that Dieter has (for one thing, I've only been here half the time). But don't worry, Rg11 and co - I'm sure you'll be getting congratulatory emails from Ararat arev and Hkelkar, not to mention the rest of Hindutva puppet show.

• Sometimes - in fact quite often - written policy is stupid and has developed away from common sense. This is a natural consequence of having policy that anyone can edit. Not to worry: provided we take written policy (which could change tomorrow) with a big pinch of salt and apply WP:UCS, we'll be fine. Rules-literalism will simply get us nowhere, and empirical evidence suggests that 98 percent of our (we being regular editors) communication with IPs is done on article talk pages anyway. The autoconfirmed limit is just not onerous to pass: on a troll magnet like this talk page, semi-protection is reasonable. Dieter edits a lot of controversial articles, and it may even reduce drama levels if IPs are forced to limit themselves to talkpage conversation rather than come here.

• Stop citing policy as if it were the word of the Lord, guys, and start using your brains. Moreschi (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

---

ah, here is the quote I was looking for: "Inappropriate." Like "concerns,"—as in "concerns were raised"—this word is a gutless bureaucratic euphemism used only by officious twits and prigs to mean: "I am not going to let you do the perfectly harmless thing you want to do." [49] (quoth Tim Kreider, a reliable source. I would never endorse this opinion in my own or Wikipedia's voice). dab (𒁳) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Persian culture

Hi Dieter

I found the above in the articles in need of wikifying. I suspect it may need deletion or merger, and guess you would know. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Very busy IP needs review

Too busy today to look over all this IP's [50] work, so hoping you have a chance today to look? He's a multiregional origins pusher and doesn't understand our MOS either. I'd appreciate it if you can help...best, Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Running WHOIS checks, this looks to be the same chap as the IPs listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rokus01 (obviously not Rokus himself, though). Personally, I think we can count this guy as a "confused troll" and apply WP:RBI. Moreschi (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dating methodology (archaeology) edits reminded me -- I've seen Amino Acid Racemization listed as an absolute dating method (and thus his edits would have been ok), but sources such as [51] say it can't be used for absolute dating. This book [52] (online version of paper book) calls it a derivative method. Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We should have just let him edit without explaining himself. He was so obviously smarter than us. I mean, he told us so, so it must be true. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

• Image:Jrrt 1905.jpg
• Image:Jrrt 1911.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Vedas

Hi Dbachmann,

I had made some changes to the article on 'Vedas'. These have been undone within minutes as 'dubiously argumentative'.

What I had written help in understanding the position of the vedas in respect of all hindus in India. It is a fact that many south Indian hindus do not accept the vedas as authoritative while accepting the Upanishads.

It is also true that the Agama traditions are far more influential and pervasive in hinduism today than the vedic hymns and rituals.

It is also a fact that the Upanishads, though compiled as part of the vedas, do teach something very different from what the hymns and rituals are all about.

It is important that we see these ancient texts in line with changing times and with a better understanding of the chronology and philosophical influences.

If not, it leads to fanatical promotion of a particular culture or a particular philosophy to the exclusion of the others.

Regards.

anwin52Anwin52 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

the factual points you made were already in the article. You have just added needless politicizing of the topic. Trust me, I know some people are fanatical about the Vedas. We've had a lot of work keeping that out of the article, and there is no need to bring it back by denouncing it. Mainstream Hindu views should be discussed at Hinduism, extremist or fundamentalist views at Hindutva, the Upanishads at Upanishads, etc. I do suggest we keep Veda striclty about the actual Vedas, not latter day politics. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I see your point. Thanks.

Anwin52 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Achaemenid Art

Do you know a little about Achaemenid Art to slightly improve this article? There is a small stub here but it lacks context. I only made one edit and changed the title. The article's creator has left WP at the moment but, notwithstanding, an article on the subject is justifiable since there is a catalogue for Achaemenid art on Commons and due to the Oxus Treasure. BTW, in your opinion, is this a picture of Achaemenid coins, medallions, or something completely different: [53]? What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

About Sakaldwipiya History

Please let me know why you have merged this article?? Devessh S N Bhatta (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

please read the discussion at Talk:Sakaldwipiya. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis

The page is protected until the 26th, which seems ridiculous. Is it worth formally requesting that it be unprotected, or would that get us nowhere? I love it when an Admin steps in, makes a mess, and then leaves it to others to clean up without taking any responsibility for it. And he admits he'd been contacted by email, who knows what he was asked to do? Sure, it's always the wrong version, but why would an Admin allow the protected version to be the one stripped of all sources? Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

I agree with your suggestion that this chap doesn't meet WP:PROF: hence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive anon

This [54] anon just removed some sourced material at Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. He seems to only pursue nationalistic disruption. Mitsube (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

CreazySuit

Hello, Dbachmann. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal extinction hypotheses

I've noticed that you have knowledge regarding prehistory and paleoanthropology and have played an important role in protecting these articles from fringe views. An IP seems to be skewing the article Neanderthal extinction hypotheses in the direction of an extreme view. I tried to do a little cleanup yesterday, but it got reverted. Again, it's an IP with minimal ability with English, which compounds the problem. I'm not able to focus on this article, unfortunately. I just noticed now that the same person is skewing the Neanderthal article. It wouldn't be so bad if the material were properly integrated and weighted and in meaningful English, but that's not the case. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've lost all patience with "IPs with minimal English pushing fringe views". Nobody on Wikipedia should be asked to invest time in such stuff. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for semiprotect. Working it out on Talk page is a good idea. Perhaps also look at the Neanderthal article, which the same IP just added problematic material to. TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

That's quite alright; we all make mistakes. I completely agree with what you wrote on the discussion page: Sub-Saharan Africa is a geographical article and therefore no place for racialist soapboxing. Glad to see I'm not the only one that understands this. Soupforone (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:JdeJ

This user has claimed that European ethnic groups is one of the worst pages on this encyclopedia. I have reverted her/his unjustified edits, which have removed sourced information. Please can you deal with her/him if the need arises? Some of her/his comments on the talk page seem quite unintelligent hard to fathom. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

they must not have seen the really bad pages. --dab (𒁳) 04:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, dab. I have refactored the above post. For reasons I don't quite understand, this user seems to hold me responsible for the article, from his edit summaries. I'm sure other editors can deal with him, as I can't understand why he blanked your table or added many of his fact tags. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he's just messing with us. But never mind, we can deal with presumed trolling and with the borderline clueless edits alike, we do not need to second-guess user intentions, what counts is their effective behaviour, and ultimately, are they helping us write the pedia. JdeJ clearly isn't, right now, and needs to be told as much. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rigvedic deities & Adityas

Hi there, I can understand your vehement attack against my edits on the Rigvedic deities page with useful scientific data gathered from reliable sources. And no, Subhash Kak and Roy are PhD scientists. For you to call it as pseudoscience only shows your ignorance and insecurities that you hold a not so NPOV viewpoint. Furthermore, you should also realize that helping people educate themselves is much better than your going around deleting hard work of others! If you have nothing to contribute, please don't do this, you appear to be able to know better. You even deleted my work under Adityas without considering the fact that it was under a separate section. If it is nonsense to you, it does not mean that it MUST BE and HAS TO BE nonsense to scholars dedicated to research. Please don't do this. Take care~! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VedicScience (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend any "vehement attack", I was merely cleaning out nonsense. If you are serious about this stuff being "useful scientific data", you probably shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. The burden is on you to show that this stuff has any notability at all. --dab (𒁳) 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before. the OR comes from PhD quantum scientists, so your insistence that "quantum is nonsense" does not hold water like at all. I left your Rigvedic deities page alone. The Adityas page has my last night's hard work. I appreciate your respecting an NPOV approach as supposed to deleting, then saying - "I did talk to you" and then continuing to insist that OR is nonsense, but all else is fine. That is not becoming of a seasoned Wikipidean. That said, I won't be adding anymore research elsewhere. I also expect you to not trample over my hard work. Hope this works for you! Take care. VedicScience (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

believe me, it does not come from "PhD quantum scientists". It is pure pseudoscience. Just your saying so doesn't make it any different. --dab (𒁳) 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms in Sanskrit page

Hi Dbachmann, based on your points, have you removed all the peacock terms and the tag in one go? Or at least, if you are interested, we, and other interested users, can clean it, giving it a time span of 2-3 days. Let me know, thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

D6 bot

This D6 bot (which changes coordinates) is screwing up article. For examples, it munged Cities of the ancient Near East - note the extra brackets that appeared at the end of many lines. And Mursili's eclipse had the coordinates screwed up.

I put something on the Talk page, but thought I should bring it to the attention of the WikiCabal. Thanks. Ploversegg (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

Neanderthal

Was just glancing over the article and got pretty discouraged. Have posted a note at WP:EA[55]. Hopefully someone will give the article some attention. TimidGuy (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved for now. UtherSRG reverted to an earlier version and semiprotected. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Adityas

Can you unprotect the page please? This isn't the first time I've seen you protect pages for no good reason, and I am a little concerned over this trigger-happiness. An account adding nonsense to a page is not a reason for full protection. Also, if you already take it upon yourself to protect a page, please at least bother to also tag it as protected. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I should have tagged it as protected, you're right. I protected it in response to an AN3 report, and the content did not appear to me to be nonsense.

Just to note for future reference, my message wizard, linked from the top of my page, has the message on the protection subpage saying "If you feel that I protected a page inappropriately or that the wrong level of protection is used, list it at requests for unprotection. Or if you are an admin, feel free to unprotect the page without further reference to me". Stifle (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ok -- thank you and sorry for not reading your message wizard. --dab (𒁳) 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I noticed that you continue to dabble in with your POV on the Henotheism page as well after the recent Adityas debacle. Let me remind you that “civility” is best understood as rational commentary. So you should go debate on the Talk:Henotheism instead of engaging in edit reversals pushing your own POV, without paying attention to references added by others for verifiability. It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean the usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating your original position ad nauseam through rvs in the face of questionable verifiability of your edits – is not civil, but merely tendentious. Be well. VedicScience (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

you have no idea how many people have come here to tell me that "civility" really means they should have their way and as an admin I should know this. It's not going to work. --dab (𒁳) 19:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

help with Burushaski as IE

Hi Bachmann,

Could you check out this question?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On WP:DENY

Thanks ;) I didn't really remember that I wrote 'Nuff said, but now I'll be sure to forget it ;) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Afd nomination of Race and Crime

I have nominated Race and crime for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. NJGW (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)