User talk:Dbachmann

---

old archives:

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 Feb 08 / 1F – 06:35, 3 Jun 08 / 20 – 15:15, 18 Nov 08 / 21 14:49, 11 Apr 2009 / 22 – 18:47, 26 Aug 09 / 23 21 Nov 09 / 24 01:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Your incivility

Some of your comments on the fringe theory noticeboard are rude. Example: [1] and elsewhere. Please be polite. Noloop (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding this section to this talk page is quite rude. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, do you have anything to say that addresses the point? Why do you feel it is necessary that you should flog the dead and decayed horse of "define myth" at WP:FTN? Did you expect people to find this interesting? Are you surprised you provoke annoyed reactions? Then perhaps you should think more before posting. I cannot believe this is still an issue. Have you presented any new evidence? Any new angles? No. You are just churning out repetitions of a matter long discussed to death. I am not sure ignorance is an excuse for this, sorry. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The content is not the issue. You need to disagree while being polite. As for the content dispute, you misunderstood my point. My point concerned systemic bias, not the definition of ""myth." Noloop (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and there I was thinking we were discussing an article. You misunderstood my point: If you have no interest in addressing the content issue, please do not waste my time. If you do not care about what the term "myth" means, I fail to see why you think you should make a drama over how it is or is not applied. If you have nothing constructive to say, I must ask you to keep off my talkpage. If you want to wikilawyer about my behaviour, take it to ANI. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to meet an admin who doesn't realize that civility matters. Noloop (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

it is less than interesting to have one's talkpage frequented by somebody who just will not listen. I have been perfectly civil with you, even though you have insisted of ignoring the issue all along. Being civil is not the same as pretending that you have a point, or pretending that I enjoy our interaction. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to rename the page Flattering user talk:Dbachmann Noloop (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

sir you slay me with your brilliance.

Check out my talk page, this user's opening comments to me are instantly abusive as well. Qwasty (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali Sacrifice

Appears to be a very obscure concept, but its been given its own section on the Hinduism page by User:Sikh-history, and linkspammed on a number of other pages. I started a discussion on Talk:Hinduism that I hope you can weigh in on.Pectore^talk 17:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Abusive comment like this are not on Pectore^talk. DAB, knows me a a fair editor, and never resort to such abuse. You have been warned. --Sikh-History 10:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merge with Jhatka

Bali Sacrifice cannot me merged with Jhatka, because Bali entails, strangulation, piercing of heart with a spike and also Jhatka. In other words strangulation, heart piercing, and Jhatka are the method, and Bali is the sacrifice.Thanks --Sikh-History 09:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note also "Khatka" means one blow, and is a practice used by Sikhs as an antithesis of Ritual slaughter i.e. Bali, Kosher, Halal. So the concepts of Jhatka and Bali are not the same. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

yes, it needs a better solution. Above all, better references. "Bali" as a term just means "offering". Our main article on Hindu sacrifice is Yajna, perhaps it can be merged there. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have used research from Princeton University. I would say that was pretty good, wouldn't you?--Sikh-History 18:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that this sort of sacrifice is not really Yajna. :-) Even if some Yajnas do include an animal sacrifice, this sort of offering to the local god/goddess is not usually considered a Yajna (probably won't have a Brahman priest officiating with Vedic rituals, for instance). I'm not even sure this deserves an article, tbh. There are various forms of Yajna and Puja and sacrifices and offerings. On some occasions in some regions they may include an actual animal sacrifice, among other offerings. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Shreevatsa from a Vaishnav point of view Sakta's are not even Hindu's. :) Thanks --Sikh-History 18:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we make it a standalone article? It seems to be a very obscure topic and almost no good references seem to be available. The Sanskrit dictionary says it's just a generic term for "oblation", not a specific class of sacrifice. We should perhaps pool the "Hindu sacrifice" articles in a central article such as Hindu sacrifice or Sacrifice in Hinduism or similar. --dab (𒁳) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

dab (𒁳) your input maybe valuable here. I am open to suggestions. Thanks--Sikh-History 16:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Sacrifice in Hinduism, would you also have a word with this editor, who seems to be changing your edits. There is an element of WP:Weasel Thanks --Sikh-History 17:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

QVC Vandalism

Hi,

Sorry to bother but I've been reverting the edits of several anonymous IP adresses on the QVC page for awhile now. The article is clearly biased, and going back in the article's history you can see these anonymous users omitted details about lawsuits against QVC, false claims about weight loss products etc. without giving a reason. I've tidied up the page and got rid of some of the more blatant advertising but they keep reverting those edits, as well as the advert tag I placed on. According to Wikiscanner QVC have made about three dozen edits to their own page (as well as mentioning QVC in a few other pages), however I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and am unsure of what to do apart from keep reverting their edits. There is also a user called Murphy86 who does the same thing and his only edits have been to the QVC article. Thanks. Deftera (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• NVM, it's sorted now. You weren't responding so I pm'ed another admin. Deftera (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Akins

Hi Bachmann, I recall a little discussion we had about "a certain very ancient book" and it wasn't Geoffrey's. Does this here ring a bell? The discussion may not require an extra pair of eyes, but I thought you'd be interested to know. Cavila (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Marco Polo

Hi. I wonder if you could have a look at the Marco Polo article. Some time ago, a separate article on the birthplace controversy was deleted and now it is in process to be recreated. As I was the one nominating the original article for deletion, I don't feel too neutral in this case so I'd like to have a second opinion. Thanks. --Tone 11:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping or not

Hi. I have a question to you. User:Teeninvestor who is currently in what may be called a dispute with me has accused me of User talk:Gun Powder Ma#Forum shopping. However, I am not aware that I acted against this guideline in these cases (actually I hate online shopping). Could you give some clarification on this? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I have been away. It's probably stale now. --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Gothic alphabet

The recent changes made to Gothic alphabet could use a brief review when you have two minutes - I'm loath to enter silly a pissing contest as a lowly IP. This discussion is a good example of "I don't need to check sources; my logic is flawless", and apparently someone is planning to make pâté out of the Examples section (the secret ingredient is "some fennic", it seems). Cheers, --84.75.167.144 (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nezami Ganjavi and Secondary opinion

Hi That article has sometimes been a source of argument between Iranian and Azeri-Turkish users. Other than that, in general there is no conflict between these users (specially for a long time now). I would like to ask you to formerly get involved if there is any problems, since the users of both sides will probably not compromise on such an issue. Can you look at here: [2]

I stated these: C. A. (Charles Ambrose) Storey and François de Blois (2004), "Persian Literature - A Biobibliographical Survey: Volume V Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period.", RoutledgeCurzon; 2nd revised edition (June 21, 2004). Pg 363: "Nizami Ganja'i, whose personal name was Ilyas, is the most celebrated native poet of the Persians after Firdausi. His nisbah designates him as a native of Ganja (Elizavetpol, Kirovabad) in Azerbaijan, then still a country with an Iranian population, and he spent the whole of his life in Transcaucasia; the verse in some of his poetic works which makes him a native of the hinterland of Qom is a spurious interpolation." and Nozhat al-Majales. Note Francois de Blois has written several of the Nezami articles in Iranica and the book: "Persian Literature - A Biobibliographical Survey: Volume V Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period" (2004) is very well received in google scholar (comments by C.E. Bosworth, Yarshater and etc.).

The Nozhat al-Majales is a recently founded gem that was published in 1987. However there are two sources by Diakonov which seems to give two different intrepretations. So I am not sure what to do with this case.

Some facts about Nezami: 1) Lived in Ganja 850 years ago 2) All of his works are in Persian 3) Mother was Kurdish 4) Father's background is argued with different intrepretations. 5) It is a USSR nation building issue according to some sources (I quoted in the talkpage).

The article is generally good though but it needs some involvement from uninvolved/non-regional users.

Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think there's any serious dispute there. The article was stable for years, and no one tried to make undiscussed changes. Maybe, there's just a debate as to whether we should refer to academic work of Diakonov or his memoir, which contain contradictory statements. But the article can do without Diakonov, imho, there are many other sources. But in any case, your opinion is always appreciated. Regards, Grandmaster 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind for now, since we only have one dab in wikipedia,..wikipedia is not going to be perfect. I believe we worked it out. I wish every user was dab (then wikipedia will be closer to perfect). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Grandmaster 20:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you guys :) Glad you could work it out. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Abuse On My Talk Page

Hi Fellow editor, is there anything you can do to prevent abuse like this of my talk page? Thanks--Sikh-History 13:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think this qualifies as "abuse". --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're being quoted

at Talk:Mitanni. Could you also please take a look at WP:RSN#Possible misuse of source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, you're being invoked here [3], by an IP address that I have a sinking feeling might be Ararat Arev sockpuppeting again. Thanatosimii (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Dbachmann, this was accepted by you and the image handler User:Jkelly had approved this 4 years ago! Thanatsimii is wanting to remove this because of the Eupolemus quote "issue" we had earlier, and were figuring out where to use the Petrie source, which Dougweller suggested to use in "historical context". The Eupolemus quote has nothing to do with the Mitanni seal to be removed. Forsts23 (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is User:Jkelly 's [4] <-- correct copyright template edit from Dec. 4, 2006. Forsts23 (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What bit of " you are now topic-banned from all edits relating to the topics of Urartu, Mitanni and related aspects of early Armenian history, for a period of four months," did you not understand? Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ararat arev

You might want to see the comments here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Forsts23 - I don't know enough to do this myself or know who else might be able to do this, if it's worth while that is. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictish Language

Hi, you reverted my edit on AS Settlement page about the Pictish language. The original editor had said Ogham and an unknown language, I think that the unknown language should actually have been undecipherable language and would have been Pictish hence my edit. There has been some progress on this, you were too quick for me as I put the press release up by mistake, the paper is here: [5], however I leave it up to you whether to put it up or not. I think that references to Pictish and Ogham are marginal on a page about AS anyway. Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC) BTW- Ogham probably originated from Ireland and was also found in the northern parts of (now Scotland) then Pictland so is not really a language of the Britons. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

well, we would need a reference that says Ogham inscriptions or "Pictish hieroglyphs" are relevant to the reconstruction of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, otherwise it doesn't make sense to mention them in the first place.

The paper is quotable, but it would make more sense to treat it at Pictish stones than at Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. Personally, I don't care much for it. These people are trying to tout their zero result. They have successfully shown that the arrangement of the symbols is "not random" but has semantic content. They have not show that it is a writing system proper. Compare the 2009 "computational study" here for a similar case. The study is interesting, but the presentation is disingenious because the authors are trying to be sexy.

This is my personal assessment, and I am not going to keep you from discussing the study in a pertinent article.

Ogham isn't a language at all, it is a script. It was used by the Gaels and apparently also to some extent by the Picts, and even by the Welsh. --dab (𒁳) 12:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops yes, thanks for correcting me on the script/ language definition.

Ogham is an interesting subject that is worthy of debate, but I agree not in the AS settlement article.

I felt that the unknown language of the original editor was somewhat too simplistic and out of date. I think that it is now regarded as Pictish ogham not an unknown script although some historians have suggested it could be Norse in origin. The Irish were raiding and settling the west coast of Britain post Roman occupation, so where they settled is where Irish ogham appears. I think to infer that it was used by the Britons is stretching it a bit, as the Picts and Scots (and Irish) were not regarded as Britons, whereas the Cornish, Welsh and Cumbrians were. I prefer your "Epigraphic evidence (in Anglo-Saxon runes and in Ogham).."etc. to how it was but maybe "Epigraphic evidence, such as Anglo-Saxon runes, provide another source of information on the settlements of Saxons and others in this period." would work better? I have commented on ogham in the AS settlement discussion page. I have also included the Rob Lee paper on the ogham page as I think that is where it belongs, hadn't thought of Pictish Stones, will give it a look.

As far as the quality of the Rob Lee paper, I notice that they are part of the mathematics department, I would rather they do this than tie up all their supercomputers to try and resolve pi to get their PhD!!!Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

They have already quoted Rob Lee on the Pictish Stone page, without comment. regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why I have removed the "unknown language" bit from the "AS settlement" page. Very often, improving an article means removing bad or off topic content. All this "Pictish hieroglyphs" stuff should be discussed, within WP:DUE, at Pictish stones, where it is on topic.

When I say that ogham was used by the Welsh, I am obviously referring to the ogham inscriptions found in Wales, not those found in Scotland. Ogham is essentially an Irish script, and all use by neighboring peoples is very marginal indeed anyway.

Since this is a discussion entirely about article content, can we please continue this on the pertinent article talkpages? --dab (𒁳) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Speak of the devil

Look who posted to my talk page (Ararat arev). Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

energy, energia, energeia

dab, I note you've worked on some of the relevant articles before. Did you know there was a dab page for energia (disambiguation), separate to energy (disambiguation), and energeia? BTW, I see you've worked on actus et potentia. This article turned out to be made independently long after potentiality and actuality, which it has now been merged into. actus et potentia, is now a redirect. In turn, before that page existed there were also energeia and dunamis (both started by me, but I would not have done so if the others existed first) and I have been trying to get through more merges, to get these into potentiality and actuality along with entelechy. Comments welcome. My draft merged article is here: I believe that maintaining the separate pages knowingly would be WP:CFORK, or at least know one has shown how that is not the case with the current materials in Wikipedia. Anyway, as energeia might soon turn into a redirect or dab this is why I was looking at energy-related dab pages. I was thinking of making energeia redirect simply, but to have a dab line at the top going to an energy dab page, preferably just the one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely a mergist myself and I think I share your general outlook. I think this is a case where I got frustrated over the disambiguation bureaucrats ("why would I need a clue when I can obsess over MOSDAB?") but maybe I should take another look at the current situation. Anyway thanks for your note. --dab (𒁳) 17:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

An extra perspective might be helpful, especially someone with no connection to the "threatened" articles, and an understanding of the normal procedures. I think I am right in saying that merge discussions were positive and friendly for years (tagging started in 2008) until I recently started actually trying to progress. There is something of a consensus at least for making one main article, and logically, if we must avoid cforks that should be enough to say that one that basis we should merge to that main article at least while the amount of material in all the articles is still pretty basic and not very long.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

dab, see what you think of change in dab: [6]. I guess I've done a minor merge here, from Energia (dab) to Energia (dab).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Wow, Andrew Lancaster is cross posting trash talk about me everywhere he can: Talk:Potentiality and actuality#Update on this article and Talk:Potentiality and actuality#refs to google books versus perseus, (07:45, 21 August 2010 and 18:54, 21 August 2010); Talk:Energeia#Update on events relating to this article; and Talk:Entelechy#Updates on events relating to this article; also the talk page of the draft he's referring people to; as well as directing users attention to those sections via their talk page: LoveMonkey! You didn't take the bait?

I need to figure out exactly what kind of administrative case I can open to put a stop to these prolific references to me and the 3RR/Edit waring case he blindsided me with. (And hopefully get those edits deleted). I'm not even sure the "voluntary 7 day vacation from the article" thing was part of the "protection" result... a block would have been shorter. At any rate, I want to appeal that too if it was, because there is no way I'm an edit warrior and that guy ain't!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Machine Elf (I post here because you've asked me not to post on your talk page, sorry dab!) my understanding is that you have agreed not to edit on this anymore and that agreement was your response to a suggestion that you make such an offer in order to avoid other sanctions. Here is where you deleted the discussion. So if you are retracting the offer then you should discuss it with User:EdJohnston? Your tone above however certainly makes it seem like you have not been able to de-personalize things and take the necessary step back in order to be able to edit constructively on this again. For my part please understand that my "cross posting trash" is just getting on with life, improving an article which can be improved. What am I supposed to do? You really did edit war of your own free will and that is a matter of record which has affected the articles in question. It is not something I made up to talk about, and it is not some kind of trick which you fell for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Mr. Lancaster, I did not agree to let you talk smack about me to anyone who will listen but sure, I'll consult the parole officer. Love it. I'm not able to let go. You're one in a million.

My asking you not to post on my talk page hasn't stopped you yet, why don't you give dab a break and fight that urge to have the last word?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to so many articles.

Hi, Dbachmann,

I see that as I put up templates on articles related to the recent Arbitration Committee case on Race and intelligence that you have visited the talk pages of some of those articles. One thing that I find interesting is that many partisans in hotly disputed articles assume that you are on "their side" in the article disputes, I think because you are dispassionate and stick to issues rather than to personalities (thus appearing friendly to everyone). What you really seem to be about, I've figured out at length, is not pushing a point of view but rather editing an encyclopedia in a source-based, scholarly way for an international readership. That is admirable and a good example to a new editor like me. I'm glad to see that you are still active in editing and I hope your thoughtful insight will guide further editing of the pages where I'm putting up the template. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this, thank you.

I saw your reply on my talk page, and here I'll say I'm LOL at the image of the arms race among monkeys to build better content for Wikipedia to gain alpha monkey status. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In principle, telling someone they are "editing an encyclopedia in a source-based, scholarly way for an international readership" should not be a compliment but simply a statement of the obvious (as this is the only reason anybody should edit here), but of course I know enough about the de facto average editor to realize that those editors who actually do this are far between and a valuable asset in a sea of pov-pushers, pseudo-intellectual narcissists, politicians and apparatchiks.

Wikipedia has taught me a lot about humanity. Not just the depressing truth about the pettiness and stupidity of the individual, but also the magical effect that things do work out in spite of it all, nearly every time. "Wikipedia cannot work in theory, only in practice" is a deep observation more generally on human community behaviour and the synergies emerging therefrom. It also tells us how you get the million monkeys to keep plodding away at their typewriters (you make it a primate power game, telling each monkey that the others are trying to get the better of them). --dab (𒁳) 07:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Varuna

Hi, I wanted to bring to your attention that there was a reference (which was hidden in comments) lost in one of your edits (diff) to the article on Varuna, just in case you had not noticed. Happy editing! --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I did this on purpose. The reference was a review of Mary Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism (1975)[7] It's valid, but we don't need it, and it certainly has nothing to do with the nonsensical paragraph it was attached to. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the talk page for Ahura Mazda. I have found references in the Rig Veda and Zend Avesta that seem to link Varuna with Ahura Mazda.

Hokie Tech (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sæbø sword

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Genetic history of the British Isles

I know you've made comments about this article before also. I've done some work on it today. I hope it is an improvement, but I thought it a good idea to ask your opinion. I have deleted large slabs of material, but also tried to insert quite a lot of more up to date material. The net effect is a big reduction in size but this is probably mostly because the old version was very repetitive and not really structured.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

per your rant at FTN

I know you're not a userbox guy, but you might enjoy this

This user saw Bigfoot and a Mokele-mbembe cured by Magnet therapy at a Reportedly haunted location while debating Climate change denial with a UFO piloted by an Aquatic ape at the Fringe theories Noticeboard.

--Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

it's funny ... because it's true :) --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth Merger Discussion

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

R1a stuff

Dab, can you take a look at this? It's been pushed off from the India page as it's undue there, but I think it has found its way across a few other articles. We are all too familiar with where the story comes from, but might you be able to comment on the refs? cheers —SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have very little patience with this. new-indology.blogspot.com isn't a "source" for anything, and genetics research papers may well be cited at the R1a article, but only as primary raw material, we need secondary summaries of research for the broader view. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I come across this quite often on the caste article cleanups as each one wants to prove some link to the Aryans or Scythians and stuff like that, but we've generally not seen it on the main articles like India or Demographics of India where it has started creeping in now. I'm not all too familiar with these genetics research papers, so figured I'd ask you. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff

Someone's talking about you

See User talk:Meeso#<real name redacted>, aka dab, aka dbachmann - I've no idea what this is about, but I'm probably going to WQA about the editor, which is how I saw this. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

German IPs who "reveal my identity" are mostly Albanian nationalists (from the comfort of an EU residence), whose agenda was thwarted by me at Kosovo. There are a number of these lurking about. If I remember correctly, Tubesship (talk · contribs) in particular was trying to make this personal.[8] Perhaps a usercheck will reveal all the IPs used disruptively by this user and lead to a general ban.

See this diff, it appears Meeso (talk · contribs) wants to "put me down forever". I won't hire a bodyguard, but I think its good enough for a permaban. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so not WQA then but ANI. I'm off to walk the dogs, if you want to take it there while I'm doing that, fine, or else I will when I get back. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'ver raised it there now. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Nationalist user

Hi Can you ban this fellow [[9]]. I really think there needs to be power to ban such a user on first sight. There are patriotic users than there are simply illogical nationalist users like this one. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps drop him a few friendly warnings first? It's quite a while since I have blocked anyone other than blatant socks or the like: these days my "admin" status mostly serves me as a "kick me" sign (i.e. the "you as an admin should know better" avenue, very popular with edit-warriors of the, ahem, more predictable sort), I'm not doing much else with it. So I'm not really the best place to call with "can you ban this fellow". --dab (𒁳) 18:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass renaming of articles without discussion

Hi Dbachmann, now that R&I articles have discretionary sanctions, I had asked Georgewilliamherbert what I should do when I think someone's being disruptive on the articles, and he said to leave a message on an uninvolved admin's talk. You seem to be more active and responsive than him, so I figured I'd ask you.

The user WeijiBaikeBianji has recently renamed [10] at least four different articles just this morning without discussing them with anyone, and now is trying to change the name of R&I too. He did bring that one up on the talk page, and several people are opposing it. He’s suggested renaming this article before, and one of the previous reasons people opposed him about it was because the title "race and intelligence" was consistent with these other articles. By renaming the other articles without discussion, he’s essentially short-circuiting that aspect of the renaming discussion.

Is it a problem to suddenly rename a bunch of different articles like this without discussing them? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it is. Personally, I am interested in sticking to the issue, not procedure. And I must say I find it an improvement to move from "intelligence" to "IQ", because that's what is under discussion. That said, I would like to stay away from such disputes, so if you raise the issue on article talk, I suppose the article will be moved back as "undiscussed move". Unless it turns out most involved editors are happy with the move, of course. --dab (𒁳) 18:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply. WeijiBaikeBianji is continuing to make article name changes faster than they can be discussed, so if you don't mind I'd like to go to another admin about this. Is that alright with you? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you about this again, but I'm more and more concerned about how discretionary sanctions are being handled on these articles. On most articles with discretionary sanctions, there are a few uninvolved admins who regularly watch for whether anyone is engaging in incivility or pushing a POV. But there don't seem to be any on these articles, and there've been a few recent examples of POV-pushing and incivility on them that uninvolved admins seem to be ignoring. I asked Georgewilliamherbert here what I should do to make sure these things have the attention of an administrator, but after more than a week he still hasn’t responded.

You're the only admin I know of other than GHW who often watches these articles without being directly involved. So if GHW can't answer my question, you're the only one I know of to ask. Is watching these articles for POV-pushing and incivility something you'd be willing to do? If not, do you have any other suggestions about how to make the discretionary sanctions have their intended effect? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask for help

Hi, Dbachmann. I have just created German version de:Slawische Vornamen of the article Slavic names. Unfortunately my language skills are insufficient and the article de:Slawische Vornamen needs some orthographic and grammatic improvements. Could you please have a look? I will be grateful. Regards! Wojgniew (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not too active at de-wiki. I think the residents have already tagged your contribution as valuable but in need of grammatical cleanup. So I hope this will sort itself out. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ARYA

I don't understand your position. I have posted my comments so as to modify this article and you are removing it ? Why ?? I have given proper refs.Rajkris (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Eventhough it is long, i'm trying to dicuss. There are some mistakes which must be corrected. Rajkris (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a Huge Essay but a discussion. I want to change some sentences of this article. I have provided the refs for.Rajkris (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In what I have written, I underlined everything which is not correct in the Arya wiki article. I have given propers refs... You have removed what i have done by telling it is a counter article... I really don't understand. I am very busy in my professionnal life. I took me time to write and find all these refs.Rajkris (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

King

Hi, I was surprised (and a little disappointed, given your track record) to see you turned King into a disambig without discussion and without fixing any of the 1000+ newly misdirected links per WP:FIXDABLINKS. I've thought it over, and believe the Monarch sense of King is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and have created a move request accordingly. --JaGa^talk 09:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very good, I agree. I don't see why you are "disappointed" by any of this, it needed fixing and between us we fixed it. Am I to understand you expected me to fix 1000+ links manually? This is the sort of thing we have bots for. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a common misconception. A bot might be able to fix some of the links, but most of them would have fallen on the WP:DPL project to be done manually. --JaGa^talk 13:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How is it a "common misconception" that we can tell a bot to "turn all links to X into links to Y"?

King was a disambiguation page until 2007. There was nothing wrong with that. Then somebody made it into a redirect. Not a problem for me either. Then, in 2008, somebody (a then-novice user) turned it into a cfork for no apparent reason[11]. Somehow it was neglected to fix this for two years. I have now turned it back into a disambiguation page. You submitted that you preferred the "primary topic" redirect and I was happy to oblige. Case closed, I hope. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Swastika (Germanic Iron Age)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien's influences

Hello. I've shortened the Wagner section in the article per your concern. If you still think that it's too prominent, please let me know and I'll have another look at it. De728631 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to work on it myself, but I was distracted. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Boycott

File:Alert.gif It seems a user has been so frustrated with how certain admins are carrying out their duties that he has boycotted English Wikipedia. I don't know all the details to the case, but I suggest that whoever is involved investigate what is causing this problem and how the conflict could be resolved. I won't say anymore (I think you can fill in the details), but if something drastic is actually brought to my attention I will bring it before a mediation commitee as I already have done on another conflict.--Gniniv (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Til. I didn't know he was YEC (if he is). Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Til is a hard-boiled YECist. He is not afraid to go to ridiculous lengths to cloud the issue just so he can slip some agnostic relativism into an article. This tactic has served him for years, as most casual observers (admins, well-meaning "mediators" etc.) can't see through the smoke-screen easily, and of course, on Wikipedia, experts are scum, so nobody listens to them saying that an user is deliberately obfuscating a point. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who can't read Gniniv's sig? Mind you, I have a hard time with the alert gif he's posted, but I can read it. It's pretty dire though. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you even understand the term "boycott"? You can't boycott something that is free. We are all volunteers here, and we all have the "right to disappear". --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Til is under the impression that Wikipedia will fall apart without him? Cavila (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI regarding User:Gniniv

User:Gniniv has filed another mediation request (this time through MedCab) nearly identical to the last one in which you took part. The Medcab report has resulted in an ANI report being filed. If you wish to take part in the ANI thread, please feel free to do so. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks. I do not remember taking part in any mediation thing other than saying I consider it a waste of effort. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronze Age horns with bird-head terminals

Hi, dab. It's entirely tangential to your recent work on Wōdanaz, but I thought you might find interest in this pair of horns, each of which originally terminated in a bird's head. It's pure conjecture, of course, but it's very easy to imagine the Torrs horns as prime examples of the kind of horns we see in Öland foil. By the way, the linked text refers to "Continental" parallels. Are you aware of any? Or do you think this is just referring to images depicting similar horns? Cheers, --80.218.71.231 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes the continuity is astounding. But since the "ritual dancers" seem to be "pan-Germanic", I must really wonder why no helmets of the kind depicted seem to have been found from the period. All actual horned helmets seem to be at least 500 years older, and all depictions seem to date to within 550-650. Very strange. --dab (𒁳) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Kurgan hypothesis is not contradicting with out of Anatolia hypothesis!

Hello and thank you for your works

Kurgan hypothesis is not contradicting with out of Anatolia hypothesis!

Kurgan hordes of pontic steppes that are assumed to have speak indo-european tongue did not came from the moon to pontic steppes but from Anatolia (which is a folk pumping region both in paleolithic and neolthic due to being refugium and land were agriculture was first discovered and animal first domesticated) and before being in Anatolia those proto indo-europeans were present in Arabia in cultures such as Kebaran, Hassuna, Halaf , Natuf and before that in Africa.

Indeed The pontic steppes hordes ultimately came from Anatolia (and before Anatolia perhaps Iran or Levant etc...) [see Gimbutas, Bernal, Renfrew] and urheimat of Indo-Hittite is generally accepted as being in Anatolia due to words in proto indo-european that are loans from khatti, sumerian, semitic and egyptian as well as for proto indo-european having words for agriculture and the milieu described by proto indo-european words fits with Anatolia but not with Central Asian&Pontic steppes besides some common mythology and pantheon proto indo-europeans share with Semitic, Egyptian, Khatti and Kartvelian.

References: see Anthony, Gimbutas, Renfrew, Gamkrelidze&Ivanonv, Dolgopolsky and Bernal

[snip]

Humanbyrace (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not dump giant amounts of text on my talkpage. Thank you. I also do not see why you come here to volunteer your personal opinions on linguistic prehistory. --dab (𒁳) 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream scholars of world first 2 universities such as Cambridge and Harvard (Colin Renfrew, Witzel...) and also Gimbutas state that Indo-Hittite urheimat is in Anatolia and as you know Europe was populated by middle easterners (Caucasoid phenotype appeared in middle east after discovery of agriculture)

It's well known that alphabet, culture, religions and language of Europe were born in Arabia and that modern human appaeared in Africa and only racists like some wikiusers and moderators dont want to write that!? why we have short lifes and did not choose our race, language or religion so why are you playin racism and fascism!?

Please be human, &objective

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly the fault of mainstream scholars that Wikipedia user "Humanbyrace" does not have the first clue about their respective fields. Sorry, but if you have no background knowledge whatsoever, why do you insist on commenting? Please try to educate yourself. Even if this means you have to go to a library and do it on your own. Once you have a basic grasp of the topics you seem to be interested in, we can have a discussion. I also resent your constant references to racism and fascism which are completely beside the point and have nothing to do with scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that what I quotated is not of Bernal but of other archeologists, historians and linguists and he does only quoting please read the text again and reintegrate it to the article you should be neutral even if you are yourself an aryanist racist you did not choose your race language or religion so be objective and dont play racism this IS AN ECYCLOPAEDOA AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED SO DONT DIRT IT WITH FASLSIFICATION AND OTHER ABSURD BIAS DUE TO ABSURD INHERITED YOUR RACE LANGUAGE ETC...

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I read many books on archeology, history , linguistic and mythology (something around 2000 books) and I have ottoman history degree and now studiying medecine.

INDO-EUROPEANS DID DONT CAME FROM THE MOON TO PONTIC STEPPES BUT FROM ANATOLIA AND ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES ARE THE MOST ARCHAIC AND DIVERISIFIED ONES BESIDES HITTITES OVERTLY WROTE IN THEIR BOOKS THAT THEY CAME TO ANATOLIA FROM THE SOUTH EAST!!!.

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry to say, it doesn't show.

Please stop saying "INDO-EUROPEANS DID DONT CAME FROM THE MOON". I understand you want to say that even the Proto-Indo-Europeans had ancestors. However, these were not Proto-Indo-Europeans, they were pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans. I also understand that you are an adherent of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Good for you. It's a respectable view, even if it isn't the mainstream view. So, please also stop informing me of the fact. In fact, please stop shouting and pasting content on my talkpage altogether, it is not helpful to either of us. --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for my bad comments

Humanbyrace (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Europe

To my surprise, everybody seems to agree with my proposal on the talk page (which was inspired by your comments), so I guess I am going to implement it soon. You haven't commented yet: Do you agree? Any ideas what could be done better? Hans Adler 08:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please

Hello, Dub. Can you please rv this action, or strike it, or something. I dont have will anymore to enter this nationalistic battles full of hatred. User:Happy Democrat is sock of wikipedia Sockmaster User:Sinbad Barron. I supose that even strike will be enough? Thanks. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 08:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you at least respond me, on your page? I hope that it wont be to much for you? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Til's back

See his edits at Epic of Gilgamesh. Arguing over 'mythological'. TE? Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So what do you say -- did Wikipedia manage to survive his prolongued "boycott" without any lasting damage? --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's completely collapsed. I didn't think he'd stay away. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since we are discussing Til's tactics, there is a parallel case:

• Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) does valid work on articles on biblical topics, but it is apparent that he has a systematic pov driven by a religionist or ideological agenda, biblical literalism. To push this, he is trying to game the system, selectively putting up a flurry of objections on points that go against his agenda, all in the service of "encyclopedicity" of course. He then makes life so difficult for the bona fide editors that they will simply leave it alone sooner or later. This has worked very well for him so far in general, but he feels "bullied" by me because I am calling the bluff.
• Bloodofox (talk · contribs) does valid work on articles on Germanic antiquity, but it is apparent that he has a systematic pov driven by a religionist or ideological agenda, some brand of Germanic Neopaganism. To push this, he is trying to game the system, selectively putting up a flurry of objections on points that go against his agenda, all in the service of "encyclopedicity" of course. He then makes life so difficult for the bona fide editors that they will simply leave it alone sooner or later. This has worked very well for him so far in general, but he feels I am "guilty" of sabotaging Wikipedia because I am calling the bluff.

I have worked with hundreds of good editors on Wikipedia, and I have protected articles against hundreds of bad editors, but this sort is very rare, so it is interesting to see two in action at once. I do hope this doesn't indicate a trend or the project is in deep trouble. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ARYA/ARYAN pages

Hello. User Khodabendeh is telling that the refs I have provided do not meet wiki standards and therefore cannot be used as wiki refs. He has done the same thing in the Aryan page. He's 'threatening' us with wiki rules. Can you please tell me whether he's right or not. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well lets be bold and fix it? Should I fix it? I think it would be good to address the three issuess above in different articles, since many people wrongly attribute 20th century political concepts. We can make "Aryan" as a disambigious page. Then discuss:

• Aryan (Iranian Context)
• Aryan (Indian Conext)
• Aryan (Political Context)

Although I would have to think of a better tem for the third one. In reality the three concepts are not related from the viewpoint of historical development. The article "Arya" can be also a disambigious page (simple saying name of Indo-Iranians), then see Aryan (Iranian Context), Aryan (Indian Context)...I could do all of this in 5 minutes really but would need a good name for the third article. Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be fixed, but it needs to be fixed by merging, not splitting. The Arya split was a mistake. We assumed that there could be a discussion of the "meaning in Hinduism" detached from the racial stuff. It turns out that this is impossible, and that it is the Hindus in particular who fall all over themselves for these racial meanings.

We need one single article, at Aryan, that discusses all meanings, and their overlaps and mutual influence. This is mostly already done. We now just need to merge Arya into Aryan, and all will be fine. It is impossible to discuss any of this in a satisfactory way other than completely in context. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I took the inititative to merge the article. As you said one problem is better than two problems. If you have time, please check for any sectioning issues and possible missing information from the merge--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

aorist

Hi, dab. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Aorist#Protected II, if you're interested. The main dispute centers around calling the aorist a "tense", but there are other issues as well. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

Hi, Dbachmann. Your name came up as someone who might be able to help with difficulties that have arisen in developing the article Aorist. If you can spare a little of your time, some fresh perspectives are very much needed and appreciated. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatchet burial

Dab, this is time consuming, and I think we ought to consider coming to some kind of agreement. Although this has been going on at varying levels for years now, I'm sure that we can both say that a lot of our dicourses have often come to nothing, ending up as little more than wasted time and long strings on talk pages that nobody wants to read. Of course, it's easy to end up butting heads on a wiki, but I think we've done enough of it. I propose that we:

1. Both agree to avoid anything that could be considered a personal attack, jab, insinuation, or snide remark regarding one another, avoiding any personal references altogether, if need be
2. Both agree not to revert one another, and discuss tag additions if a disagreement occurs over them
3. Drop all previous issues and history, and no longer persistently view one another as "bad faith" editors

What do you say? I'm not asking for any apologies, and I certainly have no intention of making any, but I'd much rather be working on article bodies than exchanging anonymous barbs on any of a number of talk pages. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am most happy to accept this proposal. This is the only way forward, and as a matter of principle, I am always prepared to draw a line and judge editors on their current behaviour, ignoring their past behaviour. This is a simple corollary of the fact that I am here to build an encyclopedia, not for social networking or making friends. So it is no problem to make a fresh start at any point as far as I am concerned.

It will be helpful to drop any personal angle, since this is entirely unproductive, if not counterproductive.

On your second point, I do invite you to even revert edits of mine just as long as they are not blanket reverts but reverts addressing a single point, a single paragraph or a single reference. Reverts can be constructive, and if reverted on a single point I will always be willing to present an alternative phrasing. I am just not willing to put up with blanket reverts. I will also agree not to revert any of your edits, reserving edits of yours that are themselves reverts, and edits that constitute major blanking of content. Any content warning tags, and any edits on individual points you make I will agree not to revert but simply to mark with a tag if I find issue with them.

I will also be interested in collaborating with you in compiling a balanced account of the Frijjo question. I recognize that you have presented a valid reference that challenges what I consider the mainstream view. If you agree to portray this just as such, a recent challange to an established view, it will be perfectly unproblematic to incorporate it. If, on the other hand, you insist that I am mistaken about the relative notability of viewpoints, and that the mainstream view is different from what I think it is, this will need to be discussed in greater detail, and based on more references.

I also recognize that you are doing valuable work on Wikipedia, and that you have done a lot to improve our coverage on Germanic topics. Respect where respect is due. --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that we can come to an agreement, and I thank you for your insight and the compliment. I appreciate your invitation regarding the reverts, but I think a more friendly atmosphere would result from my avoiding reverting altogether with you, and instead commenting on exactly why I feel a revert may be needed. On a related note, if you want to delete any ongoing argument threads between you and I in favor of a fresh start, that is fine by me, as I don't think they're doing us any favors, and I will be happy to restate any concerns I may have without the baggage.

As for the Frijjo article, I have some other sources I would like to throw some light on (Britt-Mari Näsström's works on the subject, for example), but right now I cannot invest the time in it that it would require. I think we would be best served to continue digging for what is out there, to establish exactly who has said what, where, and when, and then just map it all out. I think that Grundy's article—which is the most thorough recent work on the subject that I've found—does a nice job of examining the issues and his bibliography could be very handy for us. I should also note that I've frequently found it difficult to ascertain what is the mainstream view on many of these subjects, if such a thing can even be said to exist in these circles; many of these subjects are so obscure that one can generally only hope to plot out the currency of different interpretations, count heads, and then note what has ended up in the three major English dictionaries on the subject.

Actually, now that I think of it, I think it would be better for me to prepare a rewrite of our Frigg article before trudging further into this, hum. Again, I'm glad that we can put away our guns. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

good. I will try to expand on the Frijjo article over the next few days, incorporating the Grundy angle. I will not have time to work on the Nidh topic in the near future, so I'll just leave that with the dictdef for the time being. --dab (𒁳) 15:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Witch Hunt for Chuck Norris

I don't know if you discovered this but the original addition of Chuck Norris to the witch-hunt article came on September 14, by this edit.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Chudasama

dab, Do you know anything about User:Chudasama? I don't see any admin action by you with respect to this user but long ago you were involved in reverting/warning this user and he seemed to be editing in an area in which you have expertise. The user got indef blocked four years ago by User:Dominic and there was an allegation of sockpuppetry that I can't see the basis for. It doesn't appear to have ever been discussed but simply a cat added to the userpage by User:ImpuMozhi suggesting the user was a puppet of User:DPSingh; to me the brief edit activity doesn't seem to support this; but my only involvement with the user until recently was that I made a technical adjustment to the block as part of a mass unprotection. The user thought I had blocked him and contacted me recently when he wanted back in. The recent discussions of sockpuppetry are unrelated and are really just block evasion in an attempt to communicate. I've discussed this with the user and he understands the issue, but I'm checking with everyone who had interactions with the user before I spend too much time on him. If you want to comment, it would be particularly helpful if you did so here. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don’t know weather by putting this message will be again block evasion but could not stop my self after looking various talk page messages for the subject matter of the fact for wiki team Administration. I am now fully satisfied with the progress and specifically for the matter that a senior level team member of wiki admins(Doug &) are sparing their time and efforts so sincerely by collecting and compiling relevant information so precisely for decision making process. My assumption of wiki team of neglecting user of less importance like me has turned wrong here and has touched me to salute wiki team deep from heart. -- posted by User:chudasama --195.229.237.37 (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit of an overkill of administrative effort over an account that has added linkspam to some articles at some point back in 2006, isn't it? If the user wants to edit, let them just create a new account and start over. As the Chudasama account has contributed nothing of any value, it will not be possible to connect any valid edits to it. From the above comment it does not seem extremely likely that anything useful will come of this, but if the user wants to edit, let them edit. If they start wrecking articles and posting spam again, we can always block them again, no problem. --dab (𒁳) 08:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree, I just wanted to make sure you didn't have any particular knowledge of this that would suggest the user is in fact a sock. I haven't reviewed other comments yet but heard from User:Dominic offline and will proceed. Thanks for confirming that you don't see any real issues.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Witch-hunt vandalism

{{uw-delete4im}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwasty (talk • contribs)

boy, you are going to have a difficult life as a Wikipedian. --dab (𒁳) 08:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor has been around since 2006, making edifying contributions like [12]. Yuk. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

yeah. A pillar of Wikipedia. We must make all efforts not to alienate this editor under WP:Expert retention.

not. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem

"...With the result that our articles would be of no more value than a random excerpt of a random usenet thread." Are you sure that isn't the case currently? :)

BTW, the caste wars are quite heavy now, do you think it might be a good idea to create a task force or something like that as a subset of WP:RSN or WP:FTN to clean up these repositories of bovine excrement? Any clean up that's done by individuals is automatically undone by SPAs in a few hours, and the standard flags of "content dispute" or "edit warring" raised. I'm really not sure how to go about these articles, I've been accused of being every caste and against every caste, that it's moving on from being funny to irritating now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I know the sentiment :) of being accused of being of every caste and ethnicity and race just because you try to be neutral, I mean. You also never get called a racist more than when you try to impress on racialist editors that their favourite race does enjoy any privileges on Wikipedia.

The IAM article isn't great, but it isn't all bad. Thanks to a few stout reverters, I see that its edit history is mostly vandalism. Definitely a candidate for semiprotection. Also when dealing with the gotra-cruft, your only option is to semiprotect the bits you have cleaned up somewhat, as otherwise they immediately plunge back into chaos as soon as you turn your back.

We get bad editors from all possible backgrounds, but I would really be interested whether some of our good Indian editors have a theory as to why it is such gigantic amounts of bizarrely abysmal editing seems to be pouring out of India. It does't seem like these caste-warriors were satisfied with merely bad editing, they insist on pushing mere lack of quality to such extremes that it is again a weird sort of achievement to even manage to produce content that is quite as bad as this.

Your only hope is semiprotection. When you semiprotect, the bad editors will explode into a flurry of socks, which can then be pinned down and blocked for abusive editing. As long as you don't semiprotect, you'll always be dealing with a diffuse cloud of redlink accounts and IPs, making any coherent conversation impossible. Once you semiprotect, the cloud separates into abusive editors, which can be dealt with administratively, and a handful of bona fide editors, who can be addressed and pointed to the relevant policies and guidelines as necessary. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, a lot of our articles attract off-wiki campaigns, Abecedare and I have been mentioned on off-wiki caste discussion forums as "people of the other castes who are jealous" and all that. However, a lot of these caste warriors from these off-wiki forums come in and make enough talk page edits and get autoconfirmed status and then edit after that. All these caste articles are ridiculously POV, even to the extent of removing POV tags, take just two examples -- Nadar (caste), all sociologist sourcing has effectively been wiped out in favor of "Nadars claim this" kind of sourcing; and Nair where it's turned out that only one side sourcing is used. Abecedare said that he's fed up of this nonsense and stopped working in this space, I still go by once in a while, but then Wikipedia is really being used as a publisher of "their" version of history. Any non-Indian admin who has even touched these articles once will never visit them again, and among the India project admins only Utcursch and I even touch this space now, and being involved in editing, we can't really take actions in many articles. I hope some of those involved at WP:RSN or WP:FTN take a more active role in this space. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, the only possible approach is using the two-hander, and that doesn't make you very popular. I still visit these places sometimes, but in small doses so the imbecility of it all doesn't get to me. --dab (𒁳) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Hobbitons

The article The Hobbitons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. De728631 (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

request

Hi dab,

I asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Near_East#Cleaning_up_IPA_letters_used_in_names, and thought you might have an opinion. I'm trying to clean up the IPA, and a huge amount of out-of-context IPA is transcriptions of Semitic & Egyptian pharyngeals and glottal stop. I wonder what the guidelines are for this: s.t. visually distinct and copy & paste-friendly would be nice. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Kurds

Hello. You recently changed the article Genetic origins of the Kurds into a redirect to History of the Kurdish people. The redirect was recently nominated at WP:RfD; rather than allow a potential "backdoor" deletion to occur, the article has been restored and nominated at AfD here. You may wish to comment there. –Grondemar 05:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bardyllis

Just like I thought, the disruption on that article has started [13] [14]. Any attempt to edit these articles is met by a tag-team of the same 2-3 users. What course of action do you recommend? Athenean (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

reverting to the last good version? --dab (𒁳) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Which would be yours. However, I am trying to voluntarily abide by 1R, even in the face of such brazen POV-pushing. Athenean (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding something and citing three sources about isn't pov-pushing, but trying to add that it is an Albanian folk etymology although none of the sources is Albanian and none of them even implies that it is folk etymology can be considered as pov-pushing.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@dab: You see what I mean? Even though modern linguists do not make the connection [15], we have this [16] "precise". Athenean (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)So you're saying that when Alain Ducellier wrote (en albanais Bardh Ylli, l'étoile blanche) he wasn't connecting it with the Albanian words?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not "connecting" it, he's merely mentioning it as an interesting tidbit. No scholar worth his salt would make that the etymology. That it's folk etymology is plainly obvious, as 3 different users are telling you. Asking for sources for stuff that's WP:OBVIOUS is WP:LAWYER and WP:TE. Athenean (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri: I suggest you hear at least Fut's arguments in the article's talkpage instead of adopting this 'Albanian ever existed' scenario (linguistics unfortunately can't give such an explanation).Alexikoua (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been prancing around with patriotic nonsense like ZjarriRrethues's for five years. Really, I've seen it all, and I'm not even interested in going through the motions. As far as I am concerned, ZjarriRrethues can either reform or get lost, we are trying to build an encyclopedia and they are clearly not here to help. Perhaps this user seriously considers the possibility that Albanian was spoken in the 4th century BC, but that would only go to illustrate their complete lack of competence in the topic (Hanlon's razor). Either way, this is a non-issue. --dab (𒁳) 20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll start an RfC then, and on the RfC please add those sources that say that it is a folk etymology. Btw I never said that Albanian was spoken in the 4th century BCE. When trying to build an encyclopedia we do so based on sources. If I'm wrong then please show me the sources that prove me wrong and since it's so obvious that it is a folk etymology then you should be able to find those sources very easily. None of the sources says that the etymology is yll and bardhe, because that would be impossible but that they are somehow related.Until other sources get published then.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri, let it rest. You are rapidly becoming disruptive. Athenean (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I merely asked for a source, which you didn't bring and that's not disruptive but there's no reason to continue this debate so I'll just wait for other sources to get published.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What is really beyond me is the eagerness of two admins and a good watchdog like Athenean to insist on the term folk etymology, when that term is not supported by any source. What happened to you guys? Albanians made your life impossible in these years? I really do not understand why is it such a problem that Albanian words may have an Illyrian root. Besides that the Albanian language descends from Illyrian is a very plausible theory, probably not the only one, but a very widespread one. Wording can be worked upon, but the sources are clear. What is not clear is your assertion of "folk etymology". --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)FutureP made a quite reasonable proposal and it was being discussed until some other users decided not to continue the discussion. Btw we're all involved so the best way to deal with this is a RfC--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: It's beyond you because you still do not understand what etymology is [17] (and you can't spell it either [18]). The rest of you posting can be considered trolling. Asking for sources for stuff that's WP:OBVIOUS (to anyone who knows what etymology is, that is) is very WP:TE. Athenean (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll just read the above as a small personal attack, by now I'm used to them and I am also used to seeing you not being sanctioned for that, so I'll pass on any further postings here. Dab thanks for letting me edit in your talk page. Cheers. --Sulmues ^(talk) 01:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, Athenean did not attack you, he explained that you made a mistake. Nobody claims that the name has an Albanian etymology. People just noted that there is a modern Albanian folk etymology. You will also note that this is never noted in the context of a discussion of Bardyllis, but rather in the context of the Albanian language. The reason is that it has nothing to do with the historical king. The proper context for a discussion of this thing is here. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources say that Dab, so why do you make that deduction? The sources don't even say that it's an etymology and btw please don't remove pov tags from articles that have been deleted on other wikipedias because of their pov(the same exact article was written by the same user on the Greek wikipedia and they deleted it because they considered that it was full of povs). --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

look, "Zjarri", it is impossible to argue with somebody who does not have the first clue of what this is even about. If you have no education on these matters, looking at snippet views in google books is not going to help you. I am sure there is some area of Wikipedia where you are qualified to contribute. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryke Geerd Hamer

hey! why did u delete the link to sc.y? hamer even refers to them... bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SA. If Hamer refers to Scientology, discuss this in the article, don't just place a generic definition of what Scientology is under See also. --dab (𒁳) 07:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

hm - the other "see also"s didnt do more, 2... now all "see also"s r gone, so that that ur edit feels alright to me... :-) bye... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sumer

Thanks. I was planning to come back to it as the writing section needs some work. At the moment it says (with no source) "Sumerian writing is the oldest example of writing on earth". Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, people get this wrong quite often. For this topic, look at Kish tablet where I have collected information of the development of cuneiform writing. It was proto-writing during the 36th to 32nd centuries, and can be argued to have evolved into writing proper by the 31st century. Egyptian writing follows a very similar timeline, but as far as I am aware the earliest evidence of writing proper in Egypt dates to the 29th century, so it is arguable that Sumer was "first" by a margin of a century or two. --dab (𒁳) 07:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that a century or two is not just a tiny margin when you consider the uncertainties of any dates during this period. I don't think anyone can say with certainty who was first. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I know. As I say, people get it wrong all the time. It is important that this is being looked after by editors who know what they are doing. Since these are gradual processes, it wouldn't even be possible to pinpoint the exact date of the "invention of writing" even if all information was available. All we can say is that the development of writing in both Egypt and Sumer was part of the cultural changes that were part of the transition to the Bronze Age. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hello Dab. I know you are involved in some of the Kosovo-based activity but I believe that it would not harm your admin status if you were to intervene on this issue that I present. Once again we have a user who is IP-hopping and constantly returning for no other reason than to amend the birth details of Xherdan Shaqiri so as to wipe the details pertaining to his links to Serbia and Yugoslavia. This means taking out the Serbo-Croat spelling, replacing Yugoslavia with the controversial Kosovo as country of birth (less the standard Kosovo note); and altering the spelling of Gnjilane by presenting the Albanian variation that is not used in any English source. Any chance you can protect the page for registered users to edit it only for some time? Here is the recent activity list[19]. It goes back atleast nine days[20]. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Long time, no see

Hi, how are you doing? I'm having a spot of bother with a POV-warrior PanjshirPashtun (talk · contribs) (yes, there's a helpful clue there), who has been making some inept edits to Nader Shah articles. The usual tactics (selective alexia, fishing trips to Google Books for some musty 19th-century sources which are obviously just as good as expert opinion from 2006, projection etc. etc.). I've now been accused of being a sock puppet of another editor who just happened to disagree with this guy too. It's obviously all a conspiracy. Anyhow, if you could keep half an eye on this malarkey I'd appreciate it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Samarra Swastika pots (there are actually more than 5 pots with Swastika motifs) are dated to 6300 bc and they are the first decorative pottery of world history

The Swastikas motifs represent our old shamanistic, proto indo-europeanist, polytheist western Asian religions.

The Indo-Europeans are west Asia origined please see the graophe as well as the explication below (read what "ashraf" said, this Ashraf seems to be a conoisseur anthropologue, also you can read the persian historian kaveh Farrokh):

Graphe

File:Http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/image.php?u=781&type=sigpic&dateline=1284827047

http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/image.php?u=781&type=sigpic&dateline=1284827047

Explanation

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bronze-age-mediterraneans-may-have.html

Indo-European input amongst French is about 10-15% and the figures of the Britain should be lower. Please see below:

http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/image.php?u=781&type=sigpic&dateline=1284827047

Note that "the light green indo-european component" is present amongst south Indians and that's in line with indo-european incursions to southern India.

Light blue component is too old and not so widespread to be bronze age indo-european.

Also light blue as well as pink and purple is not so widespread to be indo-european.

We can not equate hg's with languages and folks because those hg's are very old (paleolithic) but we have to think of old (pal-meso-neo-chalcoltihic) biocultures that formed after local genesis wich grouped many different hg's and that's why R1b is afro-asiatic in Tchad and Nigeria, vasconic in Europe, Caucasian speaking in caucasus etc...

The complex internal synthethic structure of the proto indo-european language as well as proto indo-european words for metals, complex mythology, agriculture, animal husbandry, horse mastering and chariot&war abilities suggest that the biocultural genesis of proto indo-europeans took place in one of the complex chalcolithic cultures of the ancient near east (hassuna-halaf cultures) this is also sustained by phenotypical proofs of excavation of kurgans as well as ancient depictions and current racial inventory in such indo-european strongholds as Anatolia, Iran, India, Greece (please read "indo-europeans and indo-european languages" of gamkrelidze&ivanonv ) and could not be the product of paleolithic or early neolithic cultures of-out of ice age-Europe.

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)