User talk:Dbachmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User talk:Dbachmann/Archive 43

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!

Information regarding genuineness of Puya[edit]

Hello May I take your kind attention regarding the topic Puya.Puya is indeed a form of Meitei literature and it was verified by National Archive of India that the texts or script exist before 19th century.I am not trying to spam but help wikipedia grow based on facts and proofs I is the link that prove that the script exist before 19th century..[1] Luwanglinux (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Just wondered[edit]

Why you changed the redirect for 11th millennium BC back to Late Pleistocene from Timeline of human prehistory. Serendipodous 21:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you, I admit this was probably mistaken. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


Hi, do you have a reference for [Hominini], Gray 1824/1825, to include chimps? thanks. [2] page 338 doesn't seem to cut it Jmv2009 (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent question. I remember spending time researching this, and it was very difficult to come up with original references. Either way. First of all, it seems that "Gray (1824)" is wrong, and never referenced. Others cite "Gray (1825)", but again without specific reference. I guess we will have to locate the original 1825 source after all. Your 1825 source on "Mr. Gray on Mammalia" has Hominidae and Hominina, but no Hominini at all. This supports the assumption that Gray would only have come up with Hominini after this was published. --dab (𒁳) 06:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My experience with taxonomy authorities is that zoologists tend to just lazily copy from one another. They will just write "Gray 1825" without checking or citing which publication this refers to. Sometimes, errors creep in and are multiplied ad infinitum because nobody ever checks. It is very easy to cite tons of zoological publications that attribute Hominini to "Gray 1825". As you have done the work of locating the 1825 publication in question, it appears that Gray never used Hominini at all. He used Hominidae and Hominina, but as you correctly note, not Hominini. The quest now becomes to locate when this specific term was indeed first used. It will turn out, I believe, that whoever introduced this, did so in close proximity to referring to "Gray 1825", and later authors sloppily took the reference to include Hominini. I tried to do this research once before, and I remember that it was tedious, but I don't remember what exactly I ended up concluding and based on what, and I may have been sloppy. So we need to start over and find the first use of Hominini and what exactly it was introduced for. --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

... and the answer is Arambourg 1948. I do not have hours to sink into this atm, so I may still be being sloppy, but it appears to be clear that this isn't Gray's term at all. --dab (𒁳) 11:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Not getting closer than [3] and [4], references to L.S.B. Leakey. Which reference of Arambourg is it? See e.g. [5]. Thanks. See also [6] C. Arambourg: Mammalia. [1] Jmv2009 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I will look into this with interest when I have some time. But this is the sort of literature research that tends to take some effort. --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Arambourg, C. (1948-01-01). "LA CLASSIFICATION DES PRIMATES ET PARTICULIEREMENT DES HOMINIENS". Mammalia. 12 (3): 123–135. doi:10.1515/mamm.1948.12.3.123. ISSN 1864-1547.

Hebrew script[edit]

I noticed taht you were the first to add an explanation to the {{Script/Hebrew}} template.[7] What I wanted to ask is, if {{Script/Hebrew}} "marks a string as in the Hebrew language" then why should we "Use simple {{lang|he|...}} for inline citation of Hebrew."? In other words, what is the intended difference between the two templates? Debresser (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You misquote, the rationale is " marks a string as Hebrew script", not "marks a string as Hebrew language". The idea is that a script is not a language. A language may be written in several scripts, and a script may encode more than one language, and indeed non-linguistic content. Possible applications are strings in the Hebrew script when discussing the script itself, or when referring to inscriptions or other sequences of letters with non-linguistic, cryptographic, magic/occult, or unknown significance. Idk if the "Hebrew" portion is useful, but the scope of the {{script}} is much wider in principle, intended for e.g. differentiating script variants that aren't represented in Unicode (such as Nastaliq, or regional CJK variants). --dab (𒁳) 18:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I actually quoted you precisely as you wrote it: "marks a string as in the Hebrew language", but in any case I understand what you mean. The script is for anything that is not Hebrew, but is using Hebrew script. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tadhkirah[edit]


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

No indication of notability, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PepperBeast (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)