User talk:Dbachmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Ethnic subgroups listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ethnic subgroups. Since you had some involvement with the Ethnic subgroups redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Prisencolin (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist[edit]

Would you please add these websites to WP:BLACKLIST?

  • [1] and its mirror [2]
  • [3] (it looks like a sister website, very similar content)

I don't understand why some editors still use that turkicworld.org as a source. It's a personal and nationalistic website full of misrepresented, misleading, mistranslated and falsified sources/contents. For example, There is a falsified version of Angela Marcantonio's works on this website. Compare the Original work "The Indo-European language family: questions about its status" (pdf link) with turkicworld's version. It's funny how this turkicworld guy adds "Türk" and "Türkic" to every content which he falsified/misrepresented/mistranslated them. Plus, that website is related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. It seems same person (or a team) is behind them. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This guy is still here? He has been doing this for the best part of a decade now. Your request is certainly reasonable and I have gone ahead and added the sites to the blacklist[4][5]
I am not using my admin buttons much these days, so I may be ignoring some red tape here (my admin account dates to 2004, when it was "no big deal" and you were trusted to just do whatever is good for the health of the project). If my addition is reverted you will just have to take the bureaucratic route.
--dab (𒁳) 09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. Seems he will never abandon English WP. His SPI case started since March 2012 and people still report him and his sockpuppet army. I think he's a paid pov-pusher and ethno-centrist troll, because he's very active outside WP too (YouTube, anthropology/racialist/HBD websites, history forums, and even gaming communities). He spams "turkicworld" stuffs everywhere. Looks like a nationalistic agenda (pro-Turkic, anti-European, anti-IE, pseudo-science, pseudo-history and racist). Unfortunately, there are other editors (not related to him) who think that his plague website is a reliable work and they use his materials on En-WP articles. Blacklist is useful, but I hope people don't try to copy-paste his texts. Because I encountered them many times. Recent examples were on Kanasubigi, Islamicisation and Turkicisation of Xinjiang and Kingdom of Qocho. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Finally getting to this[edit]

Please help me with overhauling Assyrian continuity. I have already done the intro with sourcing. In general we need to delete the bullshit "they always considered themselves assyrians" and the ridiculous characterization of Westerners denying their indigenous identity when it was westerners who gave it to them. We need to have a section on how the term assyria was used- geographically, endonym, exonym, referring to mosulites, etc. Once again PLEASE HELP--Monochrome_Monitor 05:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure this should even be a different page from Assyrian nationalism. The question is very interesting at its core, iirc it boils down to the similarity of the names "Syria" and "Assyria", which have been conflated since the effing Early Iron Age, so there is very little point in "resolving" the question by studying Bronze Age etymologies of the names. This "continuity" crap is just classical "antiquity frenzy", overplaying the actual continuity you will find in pretty much every place in the Old World. If you were so inclined, you could make the very same argument about "Swiss paleolithic continuity". The Swiss argument is not not made because it would be any less true but simply because people are less desperate to make it. --dab (𒁳) 05:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes. It's like saying the modern Britons are ancient Britons because the names are the same! We should merge. But seriously, I'm going to need you to do a bit of work here too. :P--Monochrome_Monitor 21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I have this bottom up approach, where I research the details for the sub-articles before I go on to tackle the fought-over "main" articles. But do let me know if you need me for something specific. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, then a good starting place is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, which Assyrian nationalists like to say is directly descended from Akkadian and emphasize "Akkadian inflections", forgetting that Aramaic in general, as well as Hebrew, have Akkadian words. Another good starting point is Simo Parpola and the Melammu Project. You may not have heard of him but he's a crazy person used as the prime source for Assyrianists.Without his citations articles on Assyrians would be near-bereft of psuedohistory.--Monochrome_Monitor 09:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

MESOPOTAMIA![edit]

I'm trying to fix our history of Mesopotamia, which I now find problematic. I believe it confuses Assyrian civilization with Sumero-Akkadian civilization, and Assur with Assyria. This is something to do research on- because most of our sources are very old and date to the first or second waves of Assyriology. We have based our estimates on the age of Assur on archeology when Assur the Assyrian city was built on an older city. This would be like saying Judah began in the Bronze Age because that's when Jerusalem began- and yes, the Assyrian king list dates to 2500, but many don't believe the older kings can be seriously called "Assyrian"- ie it's a retroactive continuity. I'm going to recommend you some google books readings, modern ones on the history of Mesopotamia/Assyria. We need attention from an expert, and right now it seems our "experts" are "Assyrian" amateur historians. Again, please help and edit these pages. To-do:

  • Merge Assyrian continuity to Assyrian nationalism
  • Delete history of the Assyrian people and awful template
  • Priority articles:
  • Assyria
  • Terms for Syriac Christians
  • every period of Assyrian history- remove references to "assyrian people", frame any references to modern assyrians as a modern ethnoreligious group indigenous to the assyrian homeland region.
  • pages on modern assyrian culture. remove or reliably source claims to possess elements of ancient Assyrian culture, ie the language and religion
  • Battle of Ninevah- this is big because Assyrians try to downplay the destruction of Assyrian civilization and pretend its a biblical myth. Also they like saying the bible is assyrian (hence need to fix panbabylonism and make it about what its actually about- the astralkult and the bibel-babel controversy, but I know that doesn't bother you for some reason)
  • delete references to parpola and treat Ancient and Modern Assyrians: A Scientific Analysis and other Assyrianist sources very carefully.

Another thing to look out for is attempts to make assyria near-equivalent to greater "mesopotamian" civilization. a key part of assyrianism is "national pride" at the greatness of assyria- but when it talks about that greatness it almost invariably claims Sumerian and Babylonian civilization as Assyrian. Wikipedia makes it seem as if assyrian civilization precedes akkadian and babylonian merely because of the assyrian king list which lists AKKADIAN kings in assur. The name Assyria was coined by a babylonian, before it was called subartu. Sorry about the disjointed ranting. Basically, two issues: 1. fake continuity 2. shitty chronology of civilizations and periods. I propose we treat mesopotamian history this way: Sumer in the south, then Akkad in the north. and sumero-akkadians built assur and its a city-state until the united sumero-akkadian empire ("old assyrian period"), division into assyria and babylon... etc.

This book is a must-read. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Mars symbol[edit]

I don't really understand why you changed that article to be a redirect to a redirect... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Because, developing the Mars symbol and Venus symbol pages, I noted that most of it was content overlap copy-pasted from astronomical symbol and astrological symbol. The history of the symbols should be discussed in context. After substracting that, there was very little content indeed to justify a standalone page. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I misunderstood your question. Never mind, it was just a typo. [6] --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Shield of the Trinity[edit]

I don't know why you made the edit you did on Shield of the Trinity. First, I doubt whether "econverso" is even a word. Second, as explained on the linked image page File:Trinity knight shield.jpg, according to the Michael Evans journal article, the text in the links connecting the outer nodes to each other reads "Non est • nec e converso", while the text along the links connecting the center node to the outer nodes reads "Est et e converso" -- and of the two, the "Est e converso" text is more significant (the bidirectionality of the outer links wouldn't surprise anyone, while the bidirectionality of the central links might be a little surprising to some). AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

sorry, I only noted the nec e converso, I didn't see that the est also has e converso. It was probably fine as it stood. For the Middle Latin spelling econverso see e.g. here --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
as for "surprising", I don't think that given "A is B" the statement "B is A" can be considered surprising (but neither is "B is not A" given "A is not B", the surprise is entirely in the lack of transitivity, i.e. "A is not C" given that "A is B and B is C"). --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Dbachmann -- Google Books doesn't work well on my home computer; I'll try to view the link later on another computer. However, the phrase "e converso" makes sense as a preposition which governs the ablative case ("ex") followed by a neuter participle in the ablative case ("conversum" nominative, "converso" ablative). As a single word, it doesn't make much sense (though apparently sometimes abbreviated into that form).
Also, the surprise you're referring to is that the diagram as a whole is inconsistent, if the assertions are interpreted in simplest logical form. However theologically, "the Son is not the Holy Spirit" and the other five negatives of that type are all rather uncontroversial. By contrast, some who would accept "the Holy Spirit is God" would be a little surprised by "God is the Holy Spirit". That's why a few forms of the diagram have the EST consistently going toward the center, even if the text has to be mostly upside-down (see File:Trinidad-Anglican-Episcopal-Coat-of-Arms.svg etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The three texts on the perimeter links unequivocally read econverso rather than e converso (i.e. there is no space). The texts on the radiating links are, as the description for the image file notes, "obscured"; but on the bottom (vertical) link the letter e and the scribal abbreviation for con are both quite clear, again with no space between them. I would suggest that the caption is changed back to econverso. GrindtXX (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
GrindtXX: the spacing may make it look like "econverso", but "econverso" is not really a word in the Latin language -- as the manuscript scribe and most of the original readers of the manuscript probably would have been aware. It was this shared background knowledge which made it possible to abbreviate by omitting word space, but a literalistic transcription would convey a misleading impression to modern readers who do not share such knowledge. I don't see how adding a word space is too different from resolving the scribal abbreviations... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Econverso may not be good classical Latin, but it did have currency in the middle ages. It appears in Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus (2002 edn.) as an adverb meaning "conversely"; and the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, under convertere, cites six instances of econverso in use (from Adam of Balsham, Michael Scot, William of Ockham, John Gower, and two archival sources), as well as others that do split the words (see here). When you get to open Dbachmann's Google Books link, you will see that that is quoting a passage from Stephen Langton that uses the word three times within a discussion of the nature of the Trinity. I would see adhering to the spacing in a quotation as equivalent to adhering to archaic or eccentric spelling. GrindtXX (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It's no big deal guys. GrindtXX is right, econverso is perfectly fine in Middle Latin. AnonMoos is also right, you wouldn't spell it that way in classical Latin. It's up to the editor how to normalize manuscript spelling. Both choices, e converso and econverso are valid, you would just try to make sure that your overall approach within your edition is consistent. I didn't mean to start a controversy on a non-issue, and I am happy with spelling it either way. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Dbachmann -- When I viewed the Google books link on a library computer, I got "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book". That was probably what was also happening on my home computer (only the message didn't display too clearly there).

GrindtXX -- You may have some valid points, but I don't really see the "Shield of the Trinity" article as a suitable place for displaying raw medievalisms / scribalisms (or for explaining them at length), since the many of the readers of that article will have difficulty enough with clear basic simple Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it was just an example of a scholarly (Ashgate Publishing) work on Middle Latin which normalized nec e converso as nec enconverso that I googled. I'm just saying that it's in use, not that it's the only right way of doing it.
On your point to GrindtXX, I agree, and I suppose the underlying issue here is that we have no decent coverage on Middle Latin anywhere. We seem to have a fair summary at Medieval Latin, plus there is Scribal abbreviation which is also fair enough and useful, but that's still very limited considering this is an entire field of study. --dab (𒁳) 06:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Dbachmann.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Dbachmann. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Dbachmann. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)