User talk:Dbachmann

---

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 2007

---

Better edit summaries

Would you be OK with slightly more detailed edit summaries rather than the default? No objection to the work you are doing but it makes it easier to scan for particular changes. jbolden1517^Talk 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Göktürk Qağans

I don't know anything about ancient writing systems of Central Asia. Could you explain to me why some people prefer to use such weird spellings with dots and other signs over the letters? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

this is Turkish spelling. The language represented is acutally Old Turkic, and if people want to use "native" spelling, they should use the romanization presented there (and above all cite their sources). The anglicized spelling of "Qağan" is Khagan. ğ is the Turkish grapheme for Turkic /ɣ/. I don't know if /qaɣan/ is the correct Old Turkic spelling, people need to cite their sources, the Khagan article claims it's /kaɣan/. dab (𒁳) 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, /k/, /q/ and /χ/ are allophones, as are /g/ and /ɣ/. The word is phonemically just /kagan/, but may well be realized as Old Turkic /qaɣan/ or /χaɣan/, I have no idea which. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

fwiiw, the Turkish seems to be Kağan. I really don't see a reason for the spelling with q- then. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

aha, it appears that Qağan can be a transliteration form the Mongolian [1] (perhaps also Azerbaijani? [2]). This sort of thing really needs to be made clear from cited sources. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your investigation. I inferred that it should have been a rendering of ancient terms in some modern Turkic language. I'd still consider it proper to routinely replace Qağan with khagan whenever I stumble upon the "modernized" spelling. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If I can add my 2 cents, historically the first researchers used whatever means they had at hand in their languages and in their professions, and however close they tried to render the particular dialect or foreign transcription (i.e. Arabic vs Persian vs Armenian etc) they were dealing with, so many-many spellings are floating around. None of the fanciful spellings can be justified from the phonetical point, unless you want to delibertely emphasize a particular dialect. With this understanding, and with consideration of facilitating googling. I support Ghirla's position with Dbachmann spelling, simple Kagan and Kaganate is all is needed to render the meaning and provide best access for googlers of different backgrounds. Neither Azerbaijani nor Turkish should be singled out as a best dialect to follow, there are dozens of other native languages, each with its own Q, or Kh, or K, Jd, J etc twist. Nowhere in the literature is a grain of semantical difference between all these "weird spellings". "Kh", for example, renders Khazarian and Kimak pronounciation, but why would anyone want to immitate Khazarian pronounciation today? "Kagan" is simpler than "Khagan", and carries as much water. Barefact 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, it would seem that there are the six pronunciations /kagan/, /kaɣan/, /xagan/, /xaɣan/, /qagan/, /qaɣan/, all allophonic to simple /kagan/. If they really occur, and which belongs to which dialect, would be a question for an expert Turkologist. dab (𒁳) 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you use those little dots in the words "Turks" and "Turkish"? This is rather annoying. As for the proliferation of alternative spellings, Ordu-Baliq is a characteristic example: the first line reads "Kharabalghasun, Karabalgasun, Kara Balgasun, Khar Balgas, Mubalik, Ordu Balykh, Ordu Balik, Ordu-Baliq, Ordu Balig, Ordu Baligh, and of course Ördu-Baliğ". Why "of course" I dare ask. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

good question. As opposed to "Ördu-Baliğ", "Turkic" is an English word, so spelled in the OED. Spelling it "Türkic" in an English sentence is simply wrong. dab (𒁳) 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Its a good question and I will be glad to answer it. For an English-native speaker with knowledge of the semantics, Turkic/Turkish is a clear cut. However, even for an English-native speaker with no knowledge of the semantics, who tries to use WP to gain knowledge, it is a mute subject. The Turkic/Turkish convention is not explained in the articles where it is used, presupposing a knowledge of the semantics and sufficient retention. The Türkic vs Turkish gives a clear-cut opposition that already indicates the considerable differences in semantics.

Another aspect is the semantics known outside of the native English-speaking world. The native languages do not discriminate the forced English finese of the Turkic/Turkish, like in Russian Türkskiy/Turetskiy where Turetskiy=Turkic=Turkish, and Türkskiy=Türkic. For non-English-speaking people the semantical difference is obvious, thou not always readily catchable. But it serves the purpose of clearly discriminating between Turkey as a state and the subject of the spiel. Which is what the communication is all about, to carry clearly the intended semantics.

Another aspect is the courtesy convention used in civilized world and certainly in the WP, to avoid abusive language and understand the connotations of the ethnic and personal terms. I am sure any admin would try to correct offending language. In that respect, one would not arbitrarily use the term Turks applied to Armenians and Kurds in Turkey, even though technically they are Turks. The same offensive connotation exists among Türkic people that do not want to be confused with Turks, be that in their languages or in English. Therefore discussing - in English - matters very contrasting with a single ethnic or political entity would call for the use of a clearer term, with distinctly expressed connotations. Please note that this rule is mutual, any, I repeat any ethnic group has a number of names with different connotations, and they should be used discreetly. Plenty of people participating in WP are so POVed that they do not pay respects to other peoples and opinions, but this is the more reason to display respect and understanding in WP.

As to the funny dots, they happen not to offend us with German names in WP, for example Düsseldorf. Some energetic partisan of a purity of English may want to censor it back to POE Dusseldorf, and they might be right, because the semantics is absolutely the same. But when the semantics is different, changing from Düsseldorf to Dusseldorf changes the meaning of the written expression.

Some time ago search engines had problems with special letters, and the desire for searcheability precluded use of diatrics. Now search for Turk will flash out Türk and vice versa, I do not think it is a consideration any more.

As a last stroke I would add that Turkish does not recognise difference Türkic/Turkish, but the difference exists nevertheless, and should not be suppressed, even though, once again, plenty of people participating in WP are so POVed that they would prefer to make some subjects flat and void of depth. WP, in contrast, is aimed to be democratic, inclusive, and aspired for balance and deference. Regards, I will keep the other half of the story for another time. Barefact 01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Barefact, I remain utterly unconvinced. On your own website turkicworld.org, you are free to introduce what neologisms you like. We are at no such liberty on Wikipedia, we have to go with established terminology. So even if I agreed with you that your spelling "Türkic" was a good idea (which I do not), I would still have to oppose its use on WP as idiosyncratic. But I completely fail to see how a distinction Türkic vs. Turkish is supposed to be in any way more enlightening to the uninformed reader than the standard distinction Turkic vs. Turkish. I am not afraid of "funny dots", but you have to use them properly, not just sprinkle them on words on a whim. Düsseldorf is the native German spelling, while Turkic is ostensibly an English (-ic) adjective formation, so listed in the OED. There can be no debate that we are going to follow OED rather than your personal tastes or opinions. The Russian spelling Tyurkskij (тюркский, not "Türkskiy"!) simply has nothing to do with this, at all. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not expect you to fall to my explanations, I just gave you most important points as I understand them. In scientific publications Türkic is used widely, including the Unesco publications. I can send you a page or a hundred pages if you want. You can't accuse Unesco Central Asia series in using poor English or following my "personal tastes". I guess the scientists just do not have a clue as to the using diatrics properly. Maybe I should expand on the courtesy convention. Even 50 years ago some publications had "Uigur Turks", "Azeri Turks" etc., maybe in deference to the ignorance of the reader who would not know what is Uigur. That language disappeared completely, at least in the English-language publications. "Azeri Turk" is offensive, I am Azeri, and I am certainly a Türk, but I am emphatically not a Turk, if you do not want to offend me. I would be surprised if OED failed to take a notice of a word that is repeated in English-language publications many times on every page during the last quarter century. For a reputably Swiss, your utterly unconvincibility sounds unconvincing, a Swiss may be Germanic, but he is emphatically not a German, and every Swiss knows how not to offend. Regards, Barefact 07:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Qilian

I'm not really sure. But the Chinese wiki redirected Nan Shan to Qilian and stated that it was called Nan Shan as it is located to south of Gansu Corridor. Eiorgiomugini 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, the German wiki first states the Nan Shan consists of the Altun Shan plus Qilian Shan, but then continues as if Nan Shan was really the same as Qilian Shan. I think "Nan Shan" is just a loose term for whatever mountains lie south of the Silk road. We should probably make Nan Shan a disambiguation page, like zh:南山. dab (𒁳) 10:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K, thanks. Maybe you should added this as well, I found this [3] which stated Qilian means sky, similiar to what the Chiense wiki stated, Qilian was a Xiongnu word means sky. Eiorgiomugini 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusing. The Tian Shan is allegedly also a "Chinese translation of the original Uyghur name". dab (𒁳) 11:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea about that either, but Qilian was indeed a Xiongnu word for sky. Eiorgiomugini 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be an unsettled question. I found this: Xinru Liu, Migration and Settlement of the Yuezhi-Kushan: Interaction and Interdependence of Nomadic and Sedentary Societies (2001) [4]

According to Sima Qian's History, the Yuezhi originally lived in a place between Dunhuang and Qilian. Linguistically Dunhuang is a variation of Tuharan. The modern city of Dunhuang in Gansu Province was a well-known Han dynasty garrison town. But the town was established around 111 B.C.E., that is, after Zhang Qian went back to the Han court to inform the emperor about the Yuezhi in 126 B.C.E. Therefore, the Dunhuang of early Han records was located somewhere other than the present Dunhuang, which was established after Zhang Qian's mission. Among the many scholars who have sought the "original" land of Yuezhi, Professor Lin Meicun [Lin Meicun, The Western Region of the Han-Tang Dynasties and the Chinese Civilization, pp. 64-67] draws attention to the steppe north of the conventional Silk Road. He points out that the Yuezhi were nomads and famous for their horses. Instead of traveling across the deserts and stopping at oases as camel caravans did in later history, the large stock of Yuezhi galloped on the pastures north of the Tianshan Mountains. Therefore, the Dunhuang where the Yuezhi used to raise their horses should be near Dunhong Mountain. Dunhong mountain was a part of the Tianshan mountain range, according to an ancient Chinese geography text, the Shanhaijing. Meanwhile, the other place name mentioned together with Dunhuang by Zhang Qian, Qilian, was not Qilian Mountain in modern Gansu Province either. He argues that the name Qilian has an Indo-European, or more specifically Tuharan etymology, by which it is associated with "heaven," as is the Chinese name Tianshan, "mountain of heaven." So the Qilian Mountain of Zhang Qian was actually the Tianshan mountain range.

It seems from this that we have no direct source for "Qilian means sky in Xiongnu", it is rather pure speculation that "Qilian has an Indo-European, or more specifically Tuharan [ Tocharian ] etymology, by which it is associated with 'heaven'". I frankly cannot guess what this etymology would be. The Tocharian word for "sky" is iprer, which I cannot seem to reconcile with qilian. dab (𒁳) 11:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This was no speculation, but asserted by Yan Shigu under the source of Shiji from vol. 111[5] that Qilian was a Xiongnu word for sky. The indo-europeans one was indeed a speculation. On the other hand, there seemed to be a dispute on the word belonging, so it better to keep the current status if you thinks is safe. Eiorgiomugini 11:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

that's great then, we can say Shiji reports that qinlin is the Xiongnu word for 'sky'"? What does it say here, 匈 奴 左 賢王 將 數 萬 騎 圍 郎 中 令 ， 郎 中 令 與 戰 二 日 ， 死 者 過 半 ， 所殺 亦 過 當 。 博 望 侯 至 ， 匈 奴 兵 引 去 。 博 望 侯 坐 行 留 ， 當斬 ， 贖 為 庶 人 。 而 驃 騎 將 軍 出 北 地 ， 已 遂 深 入 ， 與 合 騎侯 失 道 ， 不 相 得 ， 驃 騎 將 軍 踰 居 延 至 祁 連 山 ， 捕 首 虜 甚多 。 天 子 曰, and what text are we looking at here? dab (𒁳) 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ah, from the ToC I suspect this is directly from the Shiji biographies of the Western Han. dab (𒁳) 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Yan Shigu was an early Tang Dynasty's commentary historian on Shiji, therefore does not lived during the Western Han era, he was making an assertion on a statement with regard to a speech by Wudi on Huo Qubing attack at the Qilian Shan and captured the Xiongnu's Qiutu wang, the mountain which according to him was the Tian Shan, as the Xiongnu addressed Qilian as Tian. Eiorgiomugini 12:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

great. I created a stub at Yan Shigu. Your familiarity with Chinese sources is very valuable, please do add details, and create further missing articles. Wikipedia is not very strong on Chinese history, or on Chinese geography. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Alxa League, Bayanhot or Bayan Hot

Hi! I have purged Alxa Youqi and Alxa Zuoqi from the introduction line of Alxa League because they are just subdivisions (right and left banner in english, baruun and zuun (IIRC) hoshuu in mongolian, resp.) The chinese word for league or aimag is meng.

I don't have any sources on how to correctly write non-Han geographical names in the PRC. I heard there exists an official guide to these names. Do you have one of these, or does the writing Bayan Hot come from another source? Regards, Yaan 10:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

no, I was just googling. "Bayan Hot" gives me roughly twice as many hits as "Bayanhot". dab (𒁳) 10:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Asena

I'm itching to merge this article into wolf, but that article is featured, so I'm unsure what to do. Should we leave Asena as it is now? --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian Mathematics

Hi Dab, I finally have some time to start doing a major revision of the page, which I had originally planned to do much earlier (after the RfC in March). I hope you'll have some time to drop in every now and then and offer criticism. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01

Hi Dieter, our friend Rokus01 is displaying his knowledge in historical linguistics again[6]. Since you are more level-headed and patient than I am, do you think you could discuss it with him? Best,--Berig 18:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway.--Berig 19:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it, I assure you. dab (𒁳) 20:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you help?

I need help in improving Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies. I also need someone experience like yourself to help me filing an arbitration case. Could you please help? best regards, --- A. L. M. 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think those are very good and nice comments you have given at Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies. I think I will be happy to choose you as an arbitrator on this and could accept everything you have said there.

I can tolerate one image face veiled of Muhammad near bottom (even two if face is veiled). I have not mentioned it in that article because I know arbitration people try to find middle ground. They try that no one is happy by their decision. Right? If I already mention middle ground to them then what they will choose might not be middle ground any more. I like to achieve at the end exactly what you have mentioned there.

Pleaseeeeeee help me in this process. Help me in filing arbitration. You are among verrrry few people who understand this dispute so well. Netscott was another one such unique person but he is not around. I am missing him. :(.

Given that I wish to achieve exactly what you have illustrated, are you ready to spend your time and effort in that? Please.. --- A. L. M. 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

you have to be very clear on this: the arbcom judges user conduct and policy violation, it does not judge on content issues. It is not the job of the arbcom to find the "middle ground" between whatever factions happen to be in conflict at a given moment. It is the job of these factions to find middle ground, strictly adhering to WP policy. It is the job of the arbcom to judge who was moving within policy and who wasn't. I admit this is a difficult case of WP:UNDUE, which should be addressed by experts on Islamic culture, not by pro- vs. anti-Islamic tag-teams. I object to a sort of justice where the "anti-Islamic" crowd has the upper hand merely because they hugely outnumber the pro-Islamic crowd, and because the large majority of those neutral on the question don't have the required background knowledge to appreciate cases of "UNDUE". I think your best bet is the Baha-ullah case. Anyone who is serious about this being about "Wikipedia is not censored" (as opposed to annoying Muslims for the hell of it) must necessarily be interested in applying this principle to Baha-ullah just as much as to Muhammad. But I warn you that the result of this may not be fewer Muhammad pictures, but more Baha-ullah pictures... dab (𒁳) 15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no comparision with Baha-ullah. His real picture are available. I have even not mention that there. It was mentioned by someone else. I am thinking to take it out. Undue weight apply. I have given so many references there proving it. Do not you agree now with it? --- A. L. M. 15:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

well, if it was up to me, I'd say maybe one "face veiled" picture at Muhammad was appropriate, plus one at Black Stone, plus one at Isra and Mi'raj, Conquest of Mecca etc., plus of course the whole bunch at depictions of Muhammad, plus of course Siyer-i Nebi. Not very far from the present situation in fact; I agree that the Muhammad article could do with fewer of these images, but that's about it, and I suppose there is room for disagreement. You have my support in removing the one at the top at Muhammad, but that's about as far as it goes. dab (𒁳) 22:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"well, if it was up to me, I'd say maybe one "face veiled" picture at Muhammad was appropriate" Vs "You have my support in removing the one at the top at Muhammad, but that's about as far as it goes." a contradiction? I likes you but you have lots of contradictions in your statements or I have problem in understanding. I think you could be a good friend of mine but I struggle to understand you clearly. It is not that I cannot understand your English but I cannot understand your stand clearly.

Sadly, look like no one is willing to help me. Even people like itmejudith, Itaqallah, Aminz etc who do support my views 100% but they decline to help. I am getting tired to fighting what I think is right even according to wikipedia own rules WP:UNDUE. I feel bad that they keep labeling me extremist or fighting for my religion etc. Hence I wish someone like you or User:BozMo give me helping hand so that abuse I am getting being a Muslim could be reduced. However, looks like you are also not ready to help. Anyway no problem friend, thanks for talking with me. bye. --- A. L. M. 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

look, the fact is that I don't think there is a significant problem with the situation as it is now. I could also live with various scenarios of fewer images. I have no fixed opinion on this, and as I see it, there is much room for compromise. I am ready to support you as having a point that there seems to be a trend of people going out of their way to stash additional images just to make the point that "WP is not censored" or "this is not Islamopedia". Thus you have some moderate support from my part, but I do not think this is really bad at the moment. There are two scenarios I will definitely not put up with, (a) an all-out ban of displaying inline Muhammad images out of a mistaken "respect for Muslim sensitivities", and (b) the display of Western Muhammad cartoons etc. in the main Muhammad article, as perfectly UNDUE and a blatant attempt to annoy. dab (𒁳) 12:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Islam-by-country-smooth.png

Dbachmann, upon close examination, I am having serious misgivings about this image. It promises to indicate percentages of Sunni and Shi'a, but only does this visibly in two countries, Bahrain and Iraq, where there is a Sunni minority. In countries where it is widely known that there is a substantial Shi'a minority, such as Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, whatever differences there might (or might not) be in the color used are not visible to the naked eye. Perhaps this is an effect of my monitor settings, or only an unintended effect of the colors used (red and blue might be more effective in this respect)? I would be extremely surprised to discover that you had knowingly created a misleading image for sectarian purposes, yet I must admit that, before I realized who had created this, that is exactly what I suspected. I have to think that there is some misunderstanding.Proabivouac 07:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Yemen, which, according to Yemen, is 55% Sunni and 42% Shi'a, there was clearly an attempt to do something, but it only looks darker green.Proabivouac 08:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

um, no, this image was generated fully automatically based on such Sunni:Shia numbers as there were to be found on Wikipedia at the time. I know these figures are notoriously unreliable, but you can hardly blame the map for that. I consider it in fact an advantage that the colour code doesn't betray the precise size of Shia minorities to the naked eye, because the margin of error will always be significant. The map is simply the best I could come up with seeing the data available, you are most welcome to improve on it. dab (𒁳) 14:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Aryabhata on Kaliyuga

Your edits in Mahabharata somewhat changed the significance of Aryabhata's work. My earlier edit was aimed at avoiding the common myth that Aryabhata was trying to date the MB. It isn't even clear that he was trying to date the Kaliyuga epoch, as opposed to the last significant epoch per se based on conjunction calculations. All the other associations came after him: Aryabhata epoch at 3102 BCE => others subsequently call this the Kaliyuga => still others then propound that the MB was back then, "by definition". rudra 08:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I confess I was in the dark here. I would be very pleased to see some unambiguous reference for all this, I only ever introduced Aryabhata based on websearch hearsay. It would be excellent to cut to the chase and reference precisely what Aryabhata was calculating (and when all this was first associated with the Mahabharata war). dab (𒁳) 09:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree on Year numbering redirect

I just want to let you know that I think your redirect of Year numbering to Calendar era was a good idea. --Gerry Ashton 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

On disambiguation

Hi wikipedian fellow,

I’d like to discuss something with you, after you added a disambiguation line in the article Suffering.

It seems to me that disambiguation is going a bit too far in WP. I noticed that many articles begin with a disambiguation list, rather than the main relevant matter. That looks ugly, I find, and does not welcome the reader to an easy reading. See for instance the article pain and nociception : why should these albums enjoy a free and spam-like publicity?

I do not object to one little headline of disambiguation when there is a clear and present danger of confusion. I do not think it is the case with the word ‘suffer’, but if you think it is the case, I would suggest that a reader who types ‘suffer’ should be brought to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffer_%28disambiguation%29, rather than being redirected to the article Suffering which then has to begin with "see suffer (disambiguation) for other uses" instead of "Suffering is usually described as a negative basic feeling or emotion..." Robert Daoust 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the problem in general, but I don't think suffering is suffering from a very bad case of clutter or spamming. But feel free to try a different solution. dab (𒁳) 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Indic)

I see you have rescued this policy from its previous, halfway to limbo, state. Congratulations! Imc 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Might I ask what you were doing here? (moved Jesus as myth to Jesus Christ as myth). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved an article? (since split and moved again). The "Christ" bit is central to the myth, in particular wrt the Horus/Osiris (mummy) connection. dab (𒁳) 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Schweizerdolch 1400.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Schweizerdolch 1400.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Swiss sword 1500.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Swiss sword 1500.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

your split at

You should comment on your idea for the split Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as myth.

User:Nasz

I feel that this user compromises the integrity of our articles without contributing anything of value. If his edits are investigated, one may see that even his December additions were pure pseudo-science in the vein of Proto-Ukrainian theories, and many of them still stand unreverted. This is very disturbing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this evaluation, and after repeated warnings and admonitions, I am also losing patience with this users, his newbie slack is about cut away now. dab (𒁳) 09:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about asking for checkuser on this "newbie". --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is also interesting. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

chuckle. Either it's his other brain hemisphere, or his identical twin :) dab (𒁳) 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Another twin? --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic references

Hi, Dab, it's me again. I'm involved in a prolonged dispute with User:Eiorgiomugini over a number of issues. Currently it's about the propriety of using Cyrillic references in Suyab. I'd be glad to know your opinion about that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

why didn't you just add the English translation of the Russian titles if that's what he was calling for? dab (𒁳) 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

His demands are sort of elastic and complicated. Over the past three days they included this, this, this, and many other things. Thanks for helping defuse the situation. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. dab (𒁳) 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"I see" If you see his other edits over the articles that I had created you will know what I meant. Furthermore, he is an experienced 50,000 edits wikipedian, he should had provided his translation earlier, and not making his pleading excuses for the issues.Eiorgiomugini 15:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

your input is welcome, Eiorgiomugini, and you had a point asking for the translation, but you really need to work on your temper. Be patient, and try to solve things on talkpages, especially since English does not seem to be your first language, you should take it slowly and be aware there may be misunderstandings. dab (𒁳) 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

He has 96 hours to think about if away from Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Translate

Maybe you should provided a translate instead of reverting me? Does it ever occur to you that the issue on this guy Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) had been more distorted? Since he can't provided a translate for his own why bother to keep it?Eiorgiomugini 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

you are being reverted by several veteran editors. This should make you pause and think your position over. If you would kindly ask for translation instead of throwing a temper, people would be happy to assist you. If you come across citations in an unfamiliar language, it's a good idea to ask for translation on WP:RD/L first. dab (𒁳) 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are too biased, but anyway thanks for the comment on WP:RD/L. Eiorgiomugini 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ashina noticeboard/Incidents

Now I seek for help on noticeboard/Incidents, do not removed my request, because I needed several opinions than just yours. Eiorgiomugini 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

use WP:RFC. WP:AN/I is for incidents requiring admin intervention, not a noticeboard for random content disputes. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Both had been done before, so its not gonna work again. Eiorgiomugini 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Kamyana Mohyla

Is it another chapter in the saga about Proto-Ukrainians? I started translating the article from Russian Wikipedia hoping that you will have a go at it. Try as I might, I can't discern any petroglyphs in the pictures. But the Russian Wikipedia article has some entertaining illustrations which show how cuneiform script is supposed to have evolved from those purported petroglyphs. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My edit

You just undid my edit. I don't think (given the comment) that was what was intended. jbolden1517^Talk 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

indeed. sorry. dab (𒁳) 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ah, but I did right, accidentially. [7]: you should not wikify section titles per MoS. dab (𒁳) 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Slavic peoples

Can I draw your attention to the following apparent nonsense in the Allochthonic theory section of the Slavic peoples article:

"Is perhaps worth to note now comon polish vocabulary phrase "actors from burn up theatre" was coined when Moomsen published his Getica unders name of 'Actores Anigue' and based on Manuscripts burn by him couple yeras before. The book is still defended by Germans like holy bone but most probably contains invention of Mommsen authorships. He was activ politian verbant suporter of falen pangermanizm."

I've tried to track back to find out what the original, meaningful version of this is, but with no success, and I don't know enough about Mommsen's ideas in this area to fix it. Djnjwd 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are too scrupulous. This is patent nonsense and should be removed on sight. dab (𒁳) 06:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nasz (talk · contribs)

Are you a linguistic comunity? 

if no do not absurdal entries like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mario_Alinei&diff=111284725&oldid=107461361

Also i observing for some days your habit to delete < ref > refernces. Could you advise me what i should do in this case you will continue to do this ?

Nasz 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You inserted back this nonsense... Wuold you like to elaborate ? Note that haplogroup R1b and haplogroup R1a first existed at very different times

Nasz 02:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever seen you spouting nonsense, Nasz. You are the sort of confused but belligerent editor that makes working on Wikipedia very tiring. dab (𒁳) 06:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted reference 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glagolitic_alphabet&diff=134508442&oldid=134495050

Could you plese advise me when i can report your abuse

Nasz 06:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

another deleted refernce 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Getica_%28Jordanes%29&diff=134508701&oldid=134508411 Nasz 06:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

stop adding nonsense in broken English, and everyone will thank you Nasz. dab (𒁳) 07:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

let see if wikipedia has a medecine for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Furious_Administrator_deleting_tens_of_refernced_entries Nasz 07:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I proposed my "medicine" for you, Nasz, on this noticeboard. There are several other medicines if that does not work - RCU, RFC, and RfAr. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo has proposed a community ban of this user, I am thinking about moving the relevant AN section to WP:CN. Nasz was fishing on AN, but I don't think that a discussion of any punitive measures against him should occur on that forum. Would you object to moving this section to CN? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

not at all, I am glad tp have other people deal with this. dab (𒁳) 08:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see constipation talk against some scholarly references, added by me, climbing here :). Please drop me a link where you moved it, or excuse me if I stamped in wrong place. Nasz 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

you mean conspiracy talk, Nasz. Conspiracy. Constipation has nothing to do with it, I hope. Congratulations, you have caught us. My talkpage is really the secret hideout of the great cabal. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tabor Light, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tashtyk

I have noticed our friend Eiorgiomugini does not believe that the Tagar and Tashtyk tribes of Siberia were Caucasoid, despite some charming evidence to the contrary in the article about Tashtyk culture. He is especially fascinated with the Dingling whom he seems to conflate with early Turks, which is hardly reasonable. On the other hand, the notorious Gumilev in his early article The Dingling Problem (1959) claims that the Dinglings were of Caucasoid stock.[8] It may well be doubted whether Eiorgiomugini will allow the theory to be mentioned in the Dingling article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, I seriously do not think {{Siberian Europoids}} is a good idea. It conflates archaeology and racial theories. What were you thinking? That's precisely what people like Eiorgiomugini are doing. If you want to do a "series" about "Siberian Caucasoids", you'll have to establish that main article first and show the concept exists (that is, resurrect Extra-European Caucasoid, a battlefield article scrapped as content fork). dab (𒁳) 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first pancake is always spoiled as they say in my country. Well, I am thinking about a better way to connect all these obscure articles without resorting to "see also" sections. Any suggestions? --Ghirla^-трёп- 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'd appreciate your opinion on the following assertion: "It is often suggested that Scythians may also have migrated to the area of Yunnan in southern China following their expulsion by the Yuezhi in the 2nd century BCE." --Ghirla^-трёп- 05:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Myth and ritual

Hey, remember me? A while back, I created the myth and ritual article, which was quickly hit with an "original research" notice. On the discussion page, you said you felt the article "had potential", and you urged me to continue working on it. As far as I can tell, the problem wasn't that I actually went too far with my claims (thus venturing into the realm of original research) but, rather, that I didn't go far enough: at first, I mentioned only a few scholars, forcing me to compare/contrast them with rather artificial commentary, thus making the article seem more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I've recently expanded and reorganized the article, adding more scholars (including Walter Burkert), to the point where I feel comfortable removing the "original research" notice. However, as one of the people who showed interest in the article, you might want to take a look at it. I'd appreciate your feedback. --Phatius McBluff 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Spiritus mundi and natural magic

Hi. I notice that Spiritus Mundi presently redirects to The Second Coming (poem). This doesn't seem right considering its usage pre-Yeats by Ficino et al. Should we have a separate article like Anima mundi (spirit)? Same problem with natural magic. —Viriditas | Talk 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

well, yes, these are {{R with possibilities}}. If you can be bothered, you can certainly expand them into independent articles. dab (𒁳) 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking at sources now. —Viriditas | Talk 23:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent developments

We shall never have rest or quiet... --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thracians

Hello, dab. I wont revert again, but see latest diff by user:68.147.112.124, and also user's comment at bottom of talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection

Can I ask you to move this back to Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts? JFD 17:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That works too but, like I said, I'm going to hold off on doing anything substantive until Shahar's book comes out. JFD 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

fringecruft board?

I believe we should have a separate project or noticeboard for reporting fringe theories. For instance, I accidentally stumble upon Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an and read the following: "Gog and Magog were the wild tribes of North Eastern Asia which, from the very early times had been making inroads on settled kingdoms and empires in Asia and Europe and ravaging them. According to the book of Ezekiel (Chapters 38, 39), they inhabited the territories of Meshech (Moscow) and Tubal (Tubalsek)." Is there a place where I can report it, since I have neither time nor desire to revert war or persuade people that it should be removed and the whole page rewritten? There are dozens huge articles along these lines scattered across Wikipedia. If no measures are undertaken, Wikipedia will rapidly evolve into an asylym for kooks eager to elaborate their obscure theories in mainspace. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

the main problem is that many good editors do not have the required background in humanities to tell fringecruft from bona fide minority views. I understand this, if you have no deeper acquaintance with the field, how can you tell? That's precisely how kooks sell books, they target a popular audience and tell them they are being hushed up by senile professors. There are just as many cranks in the natural sciences, if not more, but they don't stand a chance because many Wikipedians have a science background. But nonsense about Proto-Armenians, Harappan Proto-Aryans or Gog and Magog go unchallenged for months because very few people can be bothered to check. The problem is that the only people that seem to care about the Armenian hypothesis are Armenians with little or no education, and the only people that care about Indian mathematics are Indians with a collective inferiority complex. And we both know that the less educated or self-assured you are, the more aggressively you will push your national honour on the most absurd points. Our problem is not with real kooks so much as with second-generation expatriate youths who are shedding their testosterone properly intended for tribal warfare in front of the screen.

what can we do? The problem is not that we need a board, but that we need more good editors to clean up the poo-poo made by the confused and indoctrinated. A noticeboard would see much abuse. I can already see Bakasuprman and cronies tout N. S. Rajaram and denounce the entire field of Indology as fringecruft (or "dabcruft" as he likes to put it) that belongs deleted.

I could see a WikiProject. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Decrankification. Where we can keep lists of articles that need cleanup, troublespot topics, and keep records of past discussions so that interested editors without the necessary background can get their bearings quickly. But I'm not sure it would do much good, we simply lack the manpower. dab (𒁳) 06:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, such a tag would only allow a new kind of tag abuse, where people add such tags to articles where they don't belong. How many times don't we see bad faith {{fact}} additions?--Berig 06:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't propose a tag but a noticeboard along the lines of WP:PAIN or WP:RD/H where people could investigate obviously cranky statements along the lines of "Ezekiel wrote that Moscow..." as in my link above. Or: "These fundamentalists thrust Islam by hook or by crook. They converted by atrocities, by polluting the KPs by banning the wearing of sacred thread and tilak, by sexual harassment and forcible abductions of the daughters of Hindus and other satanic misdeeds."[9] Or: "The Parama Kambojas (Asii), Lohas and Rishikas (Tukharas?) also fell into the Scythian region often said to belong to Amyurgian Scythians by Herodotus".[10] You don't need an Oxford degree to understand that these statements are cranky. Neither dab nor me have time to remove these claims and to spend days defending their removal from unavoidable accusations of "vandalism". For this very reason, they are perpetuated in Wikipedia for months if not years, seriously compromising the project's integrity and reputation. We need to address the most glaring violations of WP:FRINGE, which instructs the proponents of fringe theories to reference their claims "extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual". --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed. But look how difficult it is to get even our reasonably educated friend Rokus01 (talk · contribs) to edit responsibly. You can always dodge common sense and put the burden of proof on those who challenge you. Most of the "cranks" we get have no education to speak of, often they can hardly write comprehensible English, let alone follow explanations of how they are mistaken, even if they wanted to. Oxford degrees have nothing to do with it, but you need at least highschool literacy for a meaningful debate to be possible. We cannot take it upon ourselves to offer basic education to random teenagers with internet connections. That is what I meant with my infamous "shithole" comment: If a handful of educated editors are faced with literally hundreds of uneducated edit-warriors on switching IP addresses, Jimbo's approach of 'talk to them kindly until they understand' simply breaks down, as much as I hate to say it. The result is, of course, a growing number of permanently semiprotected articles. That takes away the brunt of driveby-cranks, but is of course no obstacle to cranks with any dedication to speak of.

anyway, your idea of a noticeboard has some merit. I tried to give a first outline of the shape of the problem here. What we need are pages that allow a quick overview of affected articles, and the typical issues involved. dab (𒁳) 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to leave statements on talk pages along the lines of "I wrote the article and I consider this version [link] definitive" but in reality this approach does not work. I also thought about bringing forth the most glaring cases on WP:RD/H, as it is the last refuge of reasonably erudite public interested in improving mainspace coverage of humanities. In truth, it took me about a year to have someone (an anonymous editor) deal with Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadar, after I mentioned the article on more than one noticeboard. I will air my grievances on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories and WP:VPP to see what others think about it; your comments are welcome too. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now it seems there is some kind of discussion on the subject I would like to remark that the problem has yet another side. Sure, there are lots of editors that utterly lack the capacity to come up with contributions any intelligent person would ever bother to read, or otherwise won't deceive those who search Wikipedia to find their answers. However, it is not just about giving the right version of established truth, like mainstream guru's such as Dab want the community to believe. It is also the much more delicate general lack of capacity to turn the current state of knowledge, the scholarly discussions and high level disagreements into edits that reflect a truly comprehensive view. Wikipedia still can't compare to Britannica in choosing the right definitions and supplying the necessary contextual information to introduce a proper balance between mainstream factual agreement and mainstream speculation. It is just not done to quell an intellectual challenge posed by up to date indepth scholarly investigation for the sake of popular "common sense". This is also about high level tolerance of different ideas. I could give an enumeration of incidents where a vigorous proclaimer of truth like Dbachmann (talk · contribs) recurs to unsourced "mainstream" statements taken for granted - in reality reflecting one out of thousands of "begging the question" popular views, while scoffing anything else. Anybody who minds the establishment of a noticeboard in order to serve the Spanish Inquisition would first have to question the methods necessary to achieve some kind of credibility of those who proclaim the mastery of fire. Rokus01 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus, I agree with some of what you say. So I am a "mainstream guru". But I certainly am decidedly a mergist, not a deletionist. There is no such thing as "mainstream factual agreement vs. mainstream speculation". There is only mainstream positive agreement vs. mainstream agnosticism, and both are fine. I am certainly all for discussing fringe views, as long as these have been proposed off-wiki in serious publications. Fringe views doctored on-wiki have to be rooted out with prejudice, because "Wikipedia the free-for-all kook circus" is an ever-looming danger, by the very nature of the project. There is no question that we should discuss things like the phantom time hypothesis, but there is also no question that it belongs in Category:Pseudohistory. Not because I don't like it, but because every single historian reviewing it tells us it's trash. If this opinion makes me a mainstream guru, I am perfectly fine with the title. dab (𒁳) 06:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the fringe views you mean should be divided into two. Anybody having some kind of higher education should be able to make the difference and act accordingly: first are the peculiar views of amateurs, popular writers and the sick, views that may or may not be curious enough to be encyclopedic, and maybe we could include obsolete views (this means, once respected views nowadays seriously challenged and explicitly rejected -without reply for say at least 10 years- by more recent publications) as well in this category for having some historic value: any attempt to abuse this kind of curiosities to forward a personal or political view should indeed be rooted out. Second we have to distinguish the views that might not have been endorsed (yet) by mainstream textbooks or mainstream popular opinion, that are still the result of serious scholarly investigation. This latter category should be taken very serious, and indeed I would prefer Wikipedia to preserve agnosticism instead of being engaged in a war Wikipedia is simply not entitled to. Rokus01 21:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

of course a respectable minority view that is being seriously discussed in expert literature is something different from a crackpot view that never even deemed worthy of expert attention (say, "Hungarian Calendar"), and yet again different from historical propositions that used to be seriously discussed but are now out of the picture (Phlogiston, Urmonotheismus). All three have a place on Wikipedia, but the burden of showing that some theory is a respectable minority view is on you if you want to make the claim. Of course, an idea may be in several categories. Notoriously, the "Out of India theory" used to be a respectable minority view in the early to mid 19th century, but it is now only the scene of pathetic crackpottery. Similarly, the search for perpetual motion or squaring the circle were respectable intellectual pursuits in the 17th and 18th centuries, but in the realm of eccentricity since the 19th. Unlike what the postmodernists would have you believe, there is in fact such a thing as progress in intellectual history. It's very simple. The more outlandish your claim of some idea being actively discussed (even if not widely accepted), the more solid your references need to be. dab (𒁳) 07:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

Hi, back in April you made this edit, adding the words, "The 2005 Eurobarometer poll found that" but never finishing the sentence. What did the Eurobarometer poll find? —Angr 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

oh dear, I must have been distracted. I believe I found that the link given on Image:Europe belief in god.png [11] was offline and couldn't find the data I was looking for. dab (𒁳) 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I delete the incomplete sentence, or do you want to finish it? The link is working now, at least for me. —Angr 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly what I was going to say, but I've completed the sentence now. Thanks, and feel free to review. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Armenia

Dbachmann, we discussed about this, dont prejudice Armenian from other ethnic groups. Please explain your reasons here. Dont just revert without a reason, it makes it seem you are just another vandal. If you are trying to hide the other records from the public, that is the most foolish thing, people can find out about these records from other places. So if you have that much hate against a certain group, thats your own deal. By the way you seem to own this Wikipedia, the way you're acting here. Jewish propgranda huh? Alex mond 18:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Gundestrup C.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Gundestrup C.jpg, 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. |EPO| 14:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Same for Image:Gundestrup E.jpg --|EPO| 14:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

History of astronomy misconceptions

Hi,

Given your interest in Indian matters, I thought you might be interested in helping with this. I have recently looked for sources supporting and criticizing a number of misconceptions appearing in discussions concerning the History of astronomy (including claims of Indian heliocentrism). If you know of any sources related to these myths, please add them to the discussion at Talk:History of astronomy#common misconceptions. --SteveMcCluskey 20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion was getting so big, I gave it it's own page: Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions. SteveMcCluskey 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proto-Indo-European language

Thanks for this. I knew there was something I forgot to do when I created that category. Now then, now then... where are my glasses... —Angr 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why arent you responding to Talk:Armenia

And dont say its BS, cause you're full of BS. I wrote all this info to reveal to you, backed up by other powerful points, in support of the claim of "most western" sources reveal Armenians in the Highlands for over 4000 years. Please discuss about this, I want to see what your thoughts are. I told you those random people that reverted, didnt even read the Talk page, so please dont revert as you feel like it. I gave you a lot of evidence of Armenains ancient history in the Highlands, we didnt migrate in the 1st millenium BC. I told you many times Indo-European presence was in the Armenian Highlands from 3rd millenium BC, like Kuro-Araxes culture, and then we see Ancient records from 3rd millenium BC, to 2nd millenium BC, on and on, backed up by Greek Historians like Xenophon, who clearly reveals what Herodotus meant, we didnt migrate since in their ears Armenian was like Persian not Greek Alex mond 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

how about you cite a single source supporting your crackpot views before calling BS? It's policy, you know. WP:RS. Just saying "most sources" counts for nothing. Man, if you really think the Jews orchestrated the Armenian genocide, and are now trying to hush it up by censoring Wikipedia, you need professional help. dab (𒁳) 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We think you are a Jew (and no its not Just Wikipedia that you think im referring to Jews propaganda), dont waste our time here, You Again didnt read completely what I wrote, its amazing how you ignore what I write man, You have a problem responding, it seems you're trying to hide this, You know its true cause you dont respond accuratly, I gave you tons and there is TONS more but I just havent explained yet here. By the way you are disguised as German. You're obviously the worse of the Jewish type. Alex mond 16:46, 11 June 2007

Dbachmann, I guess I was right, you're not serious about this, you are full of it. Alex mond 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lies will not prevail in ARkaootoon. Alex mond 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

oh dear, Alex, I do think you just earned yourself a community-ban. Either way, our debate, such as it was, ends here. dab (𒁳) 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion takes place on WP:ANI under "Anti-Jewish rant". Swatjester blocked Alex for 24 hours on charges of "blatant racism". --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Tractatus de supersticionibus

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tractatus de supersticionibus, by Kwsn, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tractatus de supersticionibus is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Tractatus de supersticionibus, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Tractatus de supersticionibus itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Prod:"Aryan religion"

I've proposed "Aryan religion" for deletion. Your insight would be useful. -- Fullstop 06:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Astrology stuff

I noticed you went on a rampage changing some stuff around. Did you actually read the no references tag? It states that the article contains no references. This is designed so the user can see it immediately before they start reading the article, not for when they get to the bottom. I don't know why you are putting them in the wrong place. Wikidan829 14:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, in fact that's good, someone needs to do it. What I'm referring to is the use of the {{noref}} tag in the wrong place, these should be placed at the very top of the article, so the user is aware of it before they begin reading. Wikidan829 14:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

the point is that I am creating an empty references section, and in cases where the lack of references is not extreme, it is customary to place the template there. You are free to move it back though, I won't revert you . dab (𒁳) 14:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved them back. I appreciate your efforts to clean up the articles. I would invite you to visit this to see other articles with this tag, and observe their usage. Happy editing! Wikidan829 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

right, no problem. Maybe you'd like to comment at Template_talk:ZodiacSign too? dab (𒁳) 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A returned wanderer

Look who's back! Shall we greet him as he deserves? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

a pleasant sight, yes, give the man a warm welcome. dab (𒁳) 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Astrology traditions

I'd appreciate it if you took the time to reply to my concerns on the astrology talk page. — Sam 19:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Prehistoric Greek dialects

Can you make a map? I have a map from Margalit Finkelberg(Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Gambridge, edition 2007).

Prehistoric Greece 2000 BC

ISBN-13: 9780521852166 | ISBN-10: 0521852161) Which is new and its here.Greek Language map

Demonolatry

Hi could you possibly chat with me more about merging Demonolatry with Demonology? I can see your point, but isn't Demonology already quite long? Plus the two subjects are rather different. I've added an explanation in the Demonolatry article to explain the difference. Anyway I've tried to invite others to discuss the merge on the talk page, no joy yet, but I'd be interested to discuss it with you.Merkinsmum 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

see my reply at Talk:Demonolatry. dab (𒁳) 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Bachman assistance please

Dear Mr.Bachman Thus far I have not placed images on articles but I would like to now .I shoudl be most grateful if you coudl advise.Regards(Vr 06:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

please see Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. dab (𒁳) 08:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism

Thanks for your good work on the merge; I'll get to it asap.

Adambrowne666 07:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for your work there, except for one qualm, which I've listed on the discussion page.

Sargon of Akkad

is now an FAC. Since you did some work on this article I thought you might be interested. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Runes

Hi,

May I ask you what sources you used to write the articles about the runes?

Thanks.

Sigo 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

they are listed. Please ask specific questions on the article talkpages. dab (𒁳) 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurds and Sumerians

Hi,

I saw your comments, and I would like to invite you to take look at the sources provided here [12].Heja Helweda 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re your comment on talk:Belarusian language

...two months late, unfortunately.

You say the article "appears to focus on history and for some reason treats the various names of the language in excessive detail" -- for a good reason so. The history and the issue of names, specifically, are emotionally loaded and controversial matters with the Belarusian language. Also, I don't understand how the article "avoids discussing the language itself".

Comments and suggestions are welcome! Yury Tarasievich 08:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indus script

There's a discussion on WP:RD/H#Decipherment_claim_of_Indus_script_.26_Wikipedia_article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaldeans

I just noticed the ANI discussion. It was not as useless as it appeared: Chaldean was blocked.[13] It seems that nationalists of all countries are starting to unite. I wonder what took them so long. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following the discussion. The day the (united) nationalists successfully convince our admin population that it is I, not them, who are hurting the project, my work here will be done, I suppose. Nationalism is a great indicator for human stupidity, and one thing I have learned on Wikipedia is that human stupidity among early 21st century internet users is truly immense. But the scarier thing are intelligent nationalist. Fortunately, they are rare indeed. Acting in unison, they could take over Wikipedia. The way it would work would be (as in real life) via the apparatchik admins who are interested in their position, not the project, and will take the opportunity to ingratiate themselves with the crowd. At that point, we will have a "consensus against NPOV", and only Jimbo will be able to save WP, enforcing that "NPOV is non-negotiable". I guess we have become too big for idealism... dab (𒁳) 18:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Demonolatry is now merged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonology#Occult_demonology

Hope you like it:)Merkinsmum 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bibliotheca Palatina, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 09:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

White people

I'm concerned about this section about eye & hair color that you just added [14]. Previously these "genetic" sections, aside from 'Light skin', were removed because of OR and possible tendentious editing issues. While I don't think you are part of the 'tendentious' group (Nordicist, in this case), the OR issues still seem present. For example, this source [15] is about Europeans, not "whites." The word white doesn't appear in it anywhere.

Before the removals many studies about European traits (not about "white people") were posited as "white people" traits in what seemed like an attempt to 'centralize' white people to Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea. That kind of OR wasn't helpful to the article, and I'm afraid that your recent edits may have reintroduced them. Can you please check over your changes again? Thanks. The Behnam 07:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, why did you include that bit about the attraction to brunettes? The Behnam 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with I have with use of sources like the "Frost" source is that it is not a study of "white people" but about "European people". It discusses fair skin a bit, as it is a trait possessed by some Europeans, but this doesn't mean that "white people genetics" = "European genetics".

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those "races don't really exist" people; I believe full well that they do. I just think that genetic information about white people should actually use studies about the genetics of white people in general, instead of projecting European genetic studies over all white people. Back when we allowed that sort of OR, carefully selected studies of European genetic (specifically traits as they vary by region) were included to forward the 'Nordic people are THE whites' kind of claims underlying Nordicist theory, such as that found at white-history.com .

How about we agree to stick to studies that actually study the white race, rather than possibly misconstruing European genetics as general white race genetics? The Behnam 07:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

well, no, the fact of the matter is that the geographical center of the traits distribution happens to be in Western Eurasia. That's nothing to do with "nordicist" bullshit, it's a simple topic of population genetics. Studies of the trait will of course concentrate on areas where the traits are predominant, but of course you are free to add more material discussion the "fringe" of the trait's distribution. It is not a solution to blank a detailed discussion on grounds that you think that it is not complete in one respect. You are to extend it with coverage of the aspect you are missing instead. We can not counter "Nordicist" trolls by prohibiting discussion of the topic. We can only counter them by presenting a full discussion. I am somewhat concerned that you seem to have deleted a fully referenced detailed discussion just because it didn't quite fit your agenda, or because you thought it was slightly misplaced. dab (𒁳) 07:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many of the sources (including the one we discussed earlier) were not about the genetics white people in general but about the genetics of Europeans. We cannot misconstrue these to be identical. I still don't see grounds for inclusion of material that isn't about the topic of the article. The Behnam 07:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The information is appropriate at European genetics as it is about European genetics, not 'white people genetics'. The Behnam 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you may find some other parts of Talk:White people useful as both Wobble and I have discussed the matter extensively. The Behnam 07:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am assuming too much, but your point seems to be, "Iranians are whites too". That's certainly the case, but I don't see why you could not add a section instead of blanking all others. white people is not to discuss hair and eye color as a topic in its own right. But it must discuss these features inasmuch as they are correlated to light skin. That's perfectly on-topic in a discussion of the trait itself, and should not be delegated to an artificial areal topic like "European genetics". There is no genetic barrier between Central Asia and Europe, and you would have to establish that treatment of "European genetics" is a valid topic in the first place. "White skin" otoh is a clearly defined trait, and a discussion focussed on it does not need to justify its legitimacy. We can have articles on any genetic trait whatsoever. "European genetics" on the other hand does not make any more sense than "Iranian genetics" or "Estonian genetics" or "Portuguese genetics". dab (𒁳) 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not my point; I think most (or at least many) Iranians are closer to brown, despite the fact that they may think that they are white "Aryans." My point is that much of that information was improperly selected as representative of white people. Sources that are not studies of white people in general should not be presented as about white people in general; this association is OR. What is difficult to understand about that? We all have our opinions here but unless the source is explicitly a study of white people in general, we cannot present it as such. Of course this is not a problem so long as only sources about white people in general (rather than specifically the European whites) are used for information. Instead we have certain characteristic European traits being presented as characteristic to 'white people' as a race. The Behnam 08:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Sinc eyou are the one who deleted the Hidnutva propaganda articles what is your opinion on this article? The reason is I want an honest opinion before you actually delete it.Thanks-Vmrgrsergr 22:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

you got something wrong there. It was me who wrote the Hindutva propaganda article. The deletion was by some goof closing a 'no-consensus' afd. dab (𒁳) 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OIT - Gandhara claim

Dab, Are you willing to try mediation to resolve this ongoing conflict? Reverting warring is a waste of time.Sbhushan 14:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

what "Gandhara claim"? Mediation is not there to help you build a case if you have none: build a coherent and referenced case, and we are talking. Continue to spin and cherry-pick and we have no debate. dab (𒁳) 14:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, [16], you mean the hypothesis that the toponyms in the Rigveda reflect an expansion out of Gandhara eastwards. This is perfectly commonplace, and has been part of mainstream opinion for about 120 years. Sources are cited, others could be heaped on with ease, I don't see a problem. We are not going to prance around with agnostic relativism if academic consensus is rock solid and well established. No, not even if you do not happen to like the idea: we don't spin articles according to our tastes, we adhere to WP:NPOV+WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to resolve this conflict by engaging a third party? Let a mediator decide if I have a case or not. Do you have any suggestion to resolving this? "My way or highway" doesn't work. Mainstream also agrees for last 120 years that there is no memory of any migration or mention of any homeland. Check WP:NOR: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.Sbhushan 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

as many "parties" as you like. this is not mediation, it's editing as usual. Yes, I do welcome wider review of the article, and I invite you to post any concerns of yours to WP:RFC. Your agnosticism on whether or not you may have a case("how can we know whether I have a case? Can you cite sources that I have no case? Maybe I have a case but it's invisible to anyone out of touch with the soil of India...") is a little bit too postmodern for me. If you have one, state it. Seeing that you have not done so in the months you spent campaigning on Wikipedia, I am not exactly holding my breath. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of seeing this fight go on. Dab, can you just bring the specific passage from the source that supports the material in question? The Behnam 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Goetia page edits

Hi, I was just inquiring about the changes you made to the Goetia page. You deleted a ton of useful information and replaced it with a very superficial overview of an intensely complex work. I was wondering if you had planned on moving the information around, such as moving the listing of the 72 demons to the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum. If so, then I apologize for jumping the proverbial gun and reverting the change (while keeping some new information you added). It would just seem incredibly irresponsible to me for so much information to be so casually deleted.

- Requiemdeorum

Gobustan

Hi, could you review the claim that "According to Icelandic Sagas, written in the 13 th century, the Norse God Odin (Wotan) migrated from the Caucasus in the first century AD" and similar stuff in Gobustan State Reserve? Thanks for your time, Ghirla^-трёп- 11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Demonolatry massive copyvio

Someone has recreated demonolatry with no talk, still hardly any sources, no reason for a recreate, and -massive- cut and paste copyvio from http://www.ofs-demonolatry.org . I'm not sure how to do it, really it needs a speedy delete.Merkinsmum 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion to resolve ongoing conflict

Could you please contribute to the discussion at [17], to resolve the ongoing dispute regarding Aryan migration theory/OIT related issues Sbhushan 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)