User talk:Dbachmann

Name Yahweh

Hi Dab. Your edits to the "origins" section of Yahweh have created a situation where two paragraphs contain identical information, in different words and from different sources. This at least shows that the information is reliable, but it would better if the two paras were merged and repetitions removed. Just a suggestion. (I have no objection to the edit you made, just a discomfort with the repetition). PiCo (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit comment

Perhaps you were looking for Marian art in the Catholic Church? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

great, thanks, somehow this didn't seem to be linked from any of the relevant articles? --dab (𒁳) 19:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Outline of The Transhumanist

Hi! Saw this comment of yours, which I heartily agree with. I have been having trouble at Ceramic art (c. 120 views per day), where he popped up one day to move the serviceable existing article to History of ceramic art (c. 10 views per day), putting in its place an unillustrated page of almost entirely technical gobbets lifted from other pages (as he left it). I've protested but 2 other editors are divided, so I've let it run to allow improvement. Nearly a month on there has hardly been any, so I will shortly move to redirect CA to HofCA (or something). Your comments now or then would be very welcome. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

lol, Outline of the Transhumanist. This has got to be one of the more annoying well-meaning users of the entire project. But I suppose the law of large numbers implies that sooner or later we were going to be stuck with such a character. I am surprised, and troubled, to see that his "contributions" now also extend to actual articles. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Early Quranic Maniscripts

This new page appears to duplicate that for the History of the Quran. Why do we need it? TomHennell (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tamils

Hi Dab, It's been a long time since our paths have overlapped, but just wanted to check with you about this article. I'm planning to take it to WP:FAR -- while it's impossible to keep out the POV and poor sourcing, the least we could do is not misguide our readers into thinking that the FA star on top means that this article is one of our best. In this context, I was wondering if you could just take a look and let me know what problems you see, either here or on the article talk page would be good. I am compiling a list of specific problems, so that would be helpful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Kalam CA

Hi, I've reinstated your old cleanup notice at Kalam cosmological argument. You were absolutely right, and although I see it was you who then removed the cleanup, I think you maybe gave up too soon :-) The article lead, as it stands, is pretty poor, focusing as it does on WLC's work. Anyway, just thought I'd pop by to say hullo. Sleety Dribble (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Narsilion (band)

The article Narsilion (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet any criteria of WP:BAND. All sources in the article are dead. Band's website is dead. There is no significant coverage of the band to be found (note: "Narsilion" is a Tolkien reference). The band has not released on major labels, is not an originator of its style, has not charted on major charts, has not been in competitions, and meets no criterion whatsoever.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MSJapan (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Origin of religion

Would you please revisit Origin of religion? You can read discussion at User talk:Editor2020#Origin of religion, regarding what happened recently. I don't get what is so new in this article that cannot be found in Theories about religions, Paleolithic religion and few others. I think it should be better kept as a redirect, what do you think Dbachmann? 2001:41D0:6B:3D00:0:0:0:21C (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You had looked into this? 2001:41D0:6B:3D00:0:0:0:21C (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if he involves several deficiencies.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hattat Aziz Efendi

The article Hattat Aziz Efendi has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Redsky89 (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hattat Aziz Efendi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hattat Aziz Efendi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattat Aziz Efendi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Redsky89 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See Muhammad_of_Ghor

There are many articles in Wikipedia using a mediaeval ballad Prithviraj Raso as a reliable source of history, while the highest authorities on mediaeval Indian history are ignored. I added some sourced material in the article Muhammad_of_Ghor which was reverted by Kansas_Bear without discussion. I have made it a policy not to interfere in Wikipedia if someone reverts my contributions, because I have neither any interest in nor time for fightings. Since you are interested in India-related articles, you can see the changes at :- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_of_Ghor&type=revision&diff=674742674&oldid=674729398 Kansas_Bear's talk page contains the web link of the textbook which I had cited. It is the basic textbook in India. Unfortunately, Kansas_Bear thinks the information I provided is related only to a ballad Prithviraj Raso and is irrelevant to the real history of either Muhammad_of_Ghor or Prithviraj Chauhan and other related articles, ignoring the fact that this information is related to the incident from which slavery of India begins:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kansas_Bear#Wrong_Editing_of_Muhammad_of_Ghor I have provided it merely as an information to you, and I will not pursue this or any other issue.VJha (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I said the information, was poorly placed, poorly written, and improperly sourced. Dbachmann is more than welcome to read the "discussion" on my talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Both of you are active editors (I have little time for Wikipedia NOW), and if I put it wrongly, either ignore the information or use it properly, I am not going to edit these articles because I keep away from reverted articles. I have done my duty by sending the correct information together with authoritative source, either use it or keep the correct information out of Wikipedia. Wrong info about Prithviraj is used by right-wing Hindu extremists in India, while Satish Chandra is a leftist ; I keep away from both.VJha (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)