User talk:Dbachmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Dbachmann)
Jump to: navigation, search

Invitation to a research survey[edit]

Hello Dbachmann, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

Nomination of Bovis scale for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bovis scale 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/Bovis scale 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that you would create an article about such a highly esoteric matter, without adding any of the reservations present in the variant of this article in German, while a discussion on the talk page of Daniele Ganser and in fact the whole article are deemed unnecessary. lmaxmai (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this was ten (10) years ago. German Wikipedia didn't even mention the term at the time. I came across it, wanted to look it up, and noted that Wikipedia was unaware of it, so I tried to quickly research it. --dab (𒁳) 06:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary formatting[edit]

Please know the formatting policies, despite being in Wiktionary for thirteen years. Check especially یارا for example, see some of the things I've done there. – AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 23:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

yeah, I haven't really spent thirteen years on Wiktionary, the prevalent passive-aggressive attitude of editors put me off during a number of years. My impression had been that the atmosphere had generally improved, so I started contributing a little more recently.
I spent several hours researching a quite difficult word. You appear to have done some copyediting, some of it deteriorating the information I had given. Then you inserted the comment "cleanup Everything. This is atrocious". This really reminds me of the good old days of Wiktionary with ocd gatekeepers obsessing about template formats and ill-advised guidelines (often misrepresented as "policy") but completely ignoring quality of content.
I can hope that you represent an archaism in the project, but if the old attitude is coming back I'll just stay away for a few more years. As will probably most of the editors who could contribute actual expertise. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's all fixed now :-) – AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 03:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dbachmann: Please forgive Awesomemeeos's behavior. He is not representative of Wiktionary at large and his way of interaction has been recognized as problematic multiple times. —suzukaze (tc) 04:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos: Please read the situation. —suzukaze (tc) 04:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


I note from the article history that in 2012 you tried to convert the article Godwulf into a redirect. Since you might then be considered an 'involved' editor, I am notifying you that I have initiated an AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwulf. Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello. If you didn't notice this topic, here's a link. It might be helpful to you. [1] .

Also, don't mind the people pushing Serbian POV. Tesla was born in Croatia, them ignoring sources won't change that. Here's the link:
. (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edit is correct. Tesla was born in Kingdom of Croatia which was then a part of Austrian Empire. Everyone agrees he was born in Smiljan. Smiljan was then a part of Kingdom of Croatia. Kingdom of Croatia was in that time separated on "civilian" and "military" administration. The source says everything there is to know: "After many pleas from Jelecic, in 1850 the King's proclamation, which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers, was finally announced...For Military Frontier, the King decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation." Croatia,Slavonia and Military Frontier constitute a single land - Kingdom of Croatia. However Kingdom of Croatia has disaggregated provincial (Croatia,Slavonia) and military administration (Military Frontier). While it is correct to say that Tesla was born in Military Frontier, it is also correct that he was born in Kingdom of Croatia. It is not correct to say that Tesla was not born in Croatia, but he was born in Military Frontier, because Military Frontier was a part of Croatia. I referenced a link to the source with Tesla's statement "I was born in Croatia". With this sources there isn't much to discuss, but if you continue, you'll find how difficult it is to deal with some people who "guard" the idea that Military Frontier is something completely separated from Croatia, while they will provide no sources. (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not with the facts. Yes, Tesla was a Serb born in the Kingdom of Croatia. The problem is with (a) Serbian editors who want to avoid all mention of "Croatia", (b) Croatian editors who want the article to read "Croatia, Croatia, Croatia, and btw, Croatia", and (c) the effect the two groups have on each other. The solution would be to either grow up and act like adults, or alternatively take a step back and let non-Serbian non-Croats do the job of presenting the very simple facts of the matter. Of course neither is going to happen, and I have learned to be relaxed about this. --dab (𒁳) 06:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, relax and Tesla will lead the way. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the birthplace per sources I had referenced. That's an established fact and no one can dispute that. However, I still haven't found any credible primary sources about Tesla's ethnicity. I don't think that the problem can be solved by asking others to grow up. It can be only solved by credible secondary sources that are based on primary sources. Even contemporary newspaper articles that I've been posting on talk page (and that they have been deleting) are claiming Tesla to be Croat/Serb. People will continue to argue until we have sources that we can all agree upon. I tried to start a discussion where we could start dealing with the question by gathering all sources on Tesla's ethnicity, but some people didn't want that so they have banned that discussion. You can see it here: [3]. Look at what the sources claim: Serb, Croat, Austrian, Slavic, Hungarian, Yugoslav, Romanian.

Look at what one editor said: "Stop cherrypicking". I was trying to gather all sources on one place and I was cherrypicking? Isn't cherrypicking exactly the opposite, to gather only the sources that benefit your opinion?

So, yeah, they don't even allow sources to be posted on the talk page. I guess that some people could draw their own conclusions from the sources, instead of blindly reading the article, so the best thing is to hide the sources from them. ;) (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to introduce into the article the fact that Tesla was born in Croatia, and I was reverted. I did not attempt to discuss his ethnicity, afaict it is undisputed he was an ethnic Serb, descended from immigrants that came to Croatia one or two century earlier from the general region of Montenegro (maybe in the 1680s? I did not research it and made no claim either way).
It seems uncontroversial to me to call him an ethnic Serb as (a) his father was an orthodox priest, and (b) he joined a Serbian student club when he was in university.
This is what the article has, and I have no problem with it and I never even tried to discuss this. So I have to ask why you are taking this up with me. The only thing I complained about was the refusal to mention the fact that he was born and grew up in Habsburg Croatia. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Tesla's connections to Croatia are banned from the article by a certain group of editors. But that doesn't matter much with sources published on talk page. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusion from that sources. In my opinion the sources are decisive, so there's not that much to discuss. However, your attempt was stopped with bad faith in mind, in my opinion. There were indeed numerous discussions about Tesla's birthplace, but there are new sources which weren't reviewed back them. The most important is the source which tells us about the kings proclamation. Then there's the Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia.
Sorry to say, but Tesla's ethnicity is very much disputed. Orthodox faith does not mean a Serbian ethnicity, nor there is a such source that claims that. Funny how some editors have pushed that as an established fact. Even the source which would claim that in the 19th century the most orthodox people were Serbs, that we could not use to prove that Tesla was a Serb. That would be synthesis. Was there a Croatian or Montenegrin student club, but he preferred Serbian? Even in that case we can't deduce his ethnicity without synthesis. It far too subjective to deduce his ethnicity by the student club he joined, song he wished on his funeral and so on, and that's exactly the problem and the cause of all disputes. Until real sources are found the disputes will persist. I tried to search for the real sources. I found 19th century newspaper articles claiming Tesla to be both Croat/Serb (you can see them in the history of talk page as they are deleting them constantly). So even then his ethnicity was disputed. It seems that Tesla was a supporter of Yugoslavia so he didn't want to declare himself as one or another. He thought that all south slavs are one and the same nation. According to that we should call Tesla a yugosalv-american. I could find numerous sources to confirm that was his opinion. By declaring him as a Serbs the article actually goes against his own opinions, as he had never declared himself to be a Serb nor Croat. Serbians are very rigid to declare Tesla to be Serb as they are using him as their brand.
So to solve all the disputed, I tried to find real sources/documents that would speak of Tesla's nationality/ethnicity. Unfortunately that's was too hard and with such bad faith from other editors I didn't want to waste my time. I researched consensuses from US and Austrian Empire. I found a ship manifest from when Tesla emigrated to US. He's mentioned there as Sweedish, but he didn't fill that by himself so there was an obvious confusion. Maybe there would be more info on his immigration papers. It would be great to find those, or to find tesla on US censuses.There's also an Austrian census that had "ethnicity" column but that was before Tesla's time. It would be great to find Tesla's father on that census. So, as you see there are documents that can be found, but no one has the time to do that, and until that is done, the disputes will persist. Well, not that much because a group of editors managed to push pro-Serbian POV to the article and they block everyone who tries to temper with that, as they did with you. Basically, everyone who tries to question their POV is one against five of them so he stands no chance. They are discussing in bad faith and ignoring sources, some of them are directly lying and using personal attacks. For instance [4] this post goes against Tesla's statement and the secondary source which directly quotes the kings proclamation, but that doesn't matter to that editor. His own opinion matters more. (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry if you are not interested. I contacted you because you were worked over like me and other editors by the same group of people. Ok, good luck to you. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
oh, I am interested, I am just trying to see both sides of a dispute. Also I spent a lot of time with this kind of problem back in 2007 or so. I still support Wikipedians sinking their time into fixing nationalist problems, but I also feel that I have done my bit and then some. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
That kind of problems can only be fixed with sources. Well, even that isn't enough to some editors who would really like if the history happened the way they imagine it. Let's take Tesla's birthplace problem for example. There were many pointless discussions ans a lot of time wasted, yet nothing was accomplished until I found good primary sources (Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia). Even then, some pro-Serbian editors were trying to claim that Tesla was not born in Croatia, against his own statement. That's not surprising when every historian in Serbia is saying so. Funny how no one of that historians mentions Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia. Then they managed to use Wikipedia rules in bad faith, so they claimed that we can't believe Tesla's statement. He might have lied...or so. Although this is technically true, it's done in bad faith in my opinion. It's against Occam's razor principle. They can not claim that Tesla lied/didn't mean/didn't know where was he born or that he was mistaken. That's a too elaborate to claim without a source that would back that. Ok, so I accepted that and I invested a lot more time to battle with their main argument, that Tesla was born in Military Frontier which was not a part of Croatia, but a separate entity. I spent days investigating four sources to prove that Military Frontier was a part of Croatia, and I finally found a great secondary source that quotes the king's proclamation about the status of Croatia and Military Frontier at that time. It directly says that Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constitute a single land. However, as you saw, even that wasn't enough for some editors who were still claiming to you in your discussion, that Military Frontier is something different than Croatia, against Tesla's statement and against king's proclamation. This is in my opinion done in bad faith. They did not point you to see the sources for yourself as I did in my initial post here on your talk page. They did not want to discuss. They wanted to get rid of you. They also did one more thing in bad faith. The source with the kings proclamation was unknown at the time we had a RfC on Tesla's birthplace. So there's a basis for another RfC, but no one of them is going to open it, since they are happy with their viewpoint in the article. They are ignoring the strongest source. In my opinion we should have a new RfC on Tesla's birthplace. You asked why I'm taking this with you. I don't know why, but I took up the job to inform everyone about the sources, since they are trying to hide them. That's not an easy job to do. I don't want to bore anyone that's not interested to tackle this issue, and most people aren't. Well, that's probably better, because some issues can't be solved without proper sources and I know how hard is to find sources on Tesla's ethnicity/nationality. My contribution here are the sources on Tesla's birthplace. In my opinion that issue is now properly solved.
I saw that you tried to tackle with Tesla's nationality, but I think that your view on that topic is a bit simplistic. For example, I found sources that are claiming that Austro-Hungary had national and local citizenship. Another thing is that Austro-Hungary appeared to the outside countries as "Austria". Everyone who went abroad was an "Austrian citizen", although they could be Hungarian. So Tesla's statement that he is disowning Austrian citizenship doesn't mean much. He could have had Hungarian national citizenship, but he would still disown Austrian citizenship. There's also a local citizenship and the matter is a bit more complex when you start reading about how citizenship was arranged withing Austro-Hungary. Well, a lot of relations were a bit complicated withing Austro-Hungary. (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Hindu-Arabic numerals[edit]

{{Db-csd-notice-custom}} WWGB (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, please take care who you template. I commend you for dealing with copy-paste moves, but I am just the guy who created the redirect back in 2006, no need to tell me about it. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Unprotection of Celts[edit]

You protected this article quite some time ago. Would you mind decreasing to PC1 or unprotecting? --Izno (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's up to you, I'm not watching it. I guess a reasonable rule of thumb is that if you are reducing protection you should also watch the article for some time to get a feeling if it begins to deteriorate more rapidly. --dab (𒁳) 07:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't unprotect it, which is why I'm asking you. :D --Izno (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion the Celts article is on a topic that will continue to benefit from indefinite semiprotection. IPs who have ideas for improvement can use {{editsemiprotect}}. The last time the article was unprotected was in the fall of 2010. During that period it had as many as 50 bad edits a month. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but I do not have authority over "my" protection just because I happened to click the button historically. If you want wider admin attention for this, just post it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (which I think is also used for requests for unprotection). --dab (𒁳) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:UNPROTECT requires I ask the protecting admin first if he is still active however long ago the original protection may have been, probably out of some sense to avoid a admins taking contravening administrative action. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I see, sorry, this explains it. This is a stupid rule imho and "unwikilike", but then I am a fossil and would probably consider most of Wikipedia "unwikilike" by now. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: The kind of vandalism that I can see looks routine (or, at least in one case, essentially genre-warring). I won't push the case, but as it is, there's currently a semi-prot-edit-request on the talk page which is so-far unserviced in the past week (mind you, it has seen some discussion). --Izno (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
"Celts" will always attract stupid or vandalistic edits, and in my opinion it can remain semiprotected indefinitely. This is just my opinion and I have no problem with being overruled, that is, as long as the process of "overruling" is transparent and ostensibly weighing pros and cons by looking at the actual evidence. I make no pretense of remaining involved in or keeping track of the countless articles I may have semiprotected over the years. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


There is currently some confusion as to whether the name of this article should be spelled with or without an umlaut, with the first sentence of the text comprehensively contradicting the article name. I have requested advice at Talk:Üetliberg#Name confusion. As you have previously (a very long time ago) commented on this subject, I'm making you aware of this, in case you wish to contribute. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Image description[edit]

Hi Dbachmann. A few years ago, you made this edit to an image description. While the image source indeed states it depicts Muhammad, I was wondering where you got "prohibiting intercalation" from. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Good question, I think it was in the description at where the image came from, but I cannot be sure now, this will have to be researched (or treated as unsubstantiated). --dab (𒁳) 19:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
A few hours of browsing later and I've come across the original page on Commons. With some help of an 1879 English translation, I could pinpoint what the page was discussing: intercalation before Islam, its prohibition and an introduction to the Indian calendar. The illustration is positioned specifically in the middle of a line quoting Muhammad, so I'd say the description is pretty much correct :) --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, please make a note of that for future reference! Thanks -- --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)