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 November 2007 (UTC)
Rajendra Prasad
Mr.Bachman
I was aware that this page had been vanadalised but just notioced teh extent of vandalisation.I have corrected one bit but thought I should alert you as an administrator.Regards(Venkat Radhakrishnan (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
ANI / RfC
Started by Rokus: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dbachmann. - Merzbow 06:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dbachmann on WP:CIVIL and on dodging the issue:
- will those who don't spend time around nationalists and supremacists of various descriptions please not throw the first stone here sums it up nicely. If I show frustration, it is frustration over the difficulty of enforcing basic Wikipedia core policy these days. "Uninvolved Admins" should flock to my aid rather than chatting about perceptions of "rudeness". A pov-pusher is a pov-pusher. Of course they will cry "admin abuse", "rudeness", "WP:CIVIL" if they are called pov-pushers, what are people expecting? I am well capable of "writing for the enemy" and ignoring my own views in the interest of encyclopedicity. WP:CIVIL means that you shouldn't shout abuse at people. It doesn't mean you have to waste time flattering people who have obviously no interest in adhering to policy. WP:CIVIL appears to have become mainly a red herring for trolls to hide behind these days. I fully believe in keeping things impersonal and detached, even curt. To go forum-shopping and wikilawyering over "civility" when you find that you have no case in terms of content is disingenious, and has been tolerated far too much. I am here for encyclopedic content, and I expect to interact with people who are here for encyclopedic content. I am willing to invest time in bona fide debate, but I have simply no interest in prancing around over anything else: I have seen far to many pov-pushers come and go with zero result except for time wasted over the years. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[...]
- Please note that as per discussion at WP:ANI, a formal RfC has been created regarding your user behavior. It can be found here: [1].---- Ramdrake (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nearly Headless Nick / Relata refero
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, you seriously need to learn to stop throwing your weight around like that. The edit in question itself was most problematic. In my book, you have a propensity for wheel warring. I asked you to take the problem you had with Moreschi's admin measures to AN. You refused, preferring to stage a pathetic show of admin infighting. Now you go around branding me as a "borderline troll" because I dared draw attention to your problematic behaviour, and now you end up bullying completely uninvolved users who thought that I had a point. Where do you think you are headed with an attitude like that? Please accept that if you feel you are being abused or "personally" attacked, especially by one of your fellow admins, you are to take the matter to another admin, ideally AN/I and ask for wider input. You need to accept that you are not a law unto yourself around here, and that it may be possible, unbelievable as it may strike you, to honestly disagree with your autocratic approach to adminship. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Bachmann, it appears that your comments are specious and unkind.
- The comment might have been problematic, but that is your point of view. You cannot make comments that can be perceived as personal attacks. Your specific reference to me, on a noticeboard, was a personal and offensive remark. The link to the diff was removed without actually altering your original comments.
- You do not seem to have a good grasp of what wheel-warring is, and seem to equate the term to editing and removal of offensive messages against other contributors. You are advised to please review the WP:WHEEL policy on Wikipedia. You will see it strictly refers to "admin actions" and not editing actions. In any case, it is also advised that you review what disruptive editing and edit-warring mean. In the present circumstances, it is strongly recommended that you consider owning up your administrative tools.
- You were never referred to as a borderline troll, please read the comments (summary) properly.
- The messages contained on your talk page and mine make it plausible for every user on the encyclopedia to deduce who is more problematic.
- Yours sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- indeed. I did not expect we were going to talk at eye level. Just take your issues to AN/I in the future. Yes, I get into edit disputes sometimes. Try keeping some order in nationalism related articles some time and see how it goes. None of the disputes you see on this talkpage are related to any admin actions of mine, or about throwing around my weight as an admin. I consider my self a contributor to encyclopedia articles who also has admin buttons to deal with the odd janitorial task. I do not consider myself chief of a petty dukedom and try getting kicks from bullying the peons. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- You know, he has a point about your talkpage, dab. Perhaps you should refuse to carry on conversations on your talkpage that might cast you in a bad light, and archive everything away regularly. It would certainly mean you're on a level playing field in terms of the comparison he speaks of!
- About wheel-warring, It's interesting: I would suppose that indicating that informal guidelines had been laid down for editing on the basis of which administrative powers would be used is perhaps an administrative action, but I suppose it is debatable. Relata refero (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is easy to blank your talkpage. I will archive this page soon due to length, but I do not think anything on it casts me in a bad light, except for the 3RRvio, and this was the first time I slipped into policy violation via a complex revert in over three years. No, I may get my hands dirty as an editor, as compared to the "IRC adminhood" who cannot for the life of them judge on encyclopedicity but who nevertheless feel they are the cream of the project. I am most judicious about using my admin buttons in disputes, and this does compare favourably to people like "Sir Nicholas" who resort to block threats as soon as somebody dares to withold the admiring praise they think they deserve. I also know when it is futile to pursue a discussion. We know RfA is broken, we know that it has produced the "IRC caste" of admins who perceive Wikipedia as a power game and a popularity contests. Unsavoury encounters like this one are only a corollary, and I cannot aim at embarking on the major crusade that would be necessary to confront this problem. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've often thought that RfA's need to have a lower threshold for acceptance, especially since it means that editors who get their hands dirty will never become admins. I hardly ever vote in an RfA except when I really don't want the person getting in, and I suppose that's true of most people. Relata refero (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is easy to blank your talkpage. I will archive this page soon due to length, but I do not think anything on it casts me in a bad light, except for the 3RRvio, and this was the first time I slipped into policy violation via a complex revert in over three years. No, I may get my hands dirty as an editor, as compared to the "IRC adminhood" who cannot for the life of them judge on encyclopedicity but who nevertheless feel they are the cream of the project. I am most judicious about using my admin buttons in disputes, and this does compare favourably to people like "Sir Nicholas" who resort to block threats as soon as somebody dares to withold the admiring praise they think they deserve. I also know when it is futile to pursue a discussion. We know RfA is broken, we know that it has produced the "IRC caste" of admins who perceive Wikipedia as a power game and a popularity contests. Unsavoury encounters like this one are only a corollary, and I cannot aim at embarking on the major crusade that would be necessary to confront this problem. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
George H. W. Bush's comment on separation of church and state
Hi, it's me again. After the last edit controversy at Lords of Chaos (book) I had decided to stay away from articles about fascism for some time, because I wouldn't be able to stand another issue like this. Since then I didn't get into much controversy, so I actually continued with the debate at Neo-fascism and Religion. Anyway, another issue has arisen, and this time I am thinking even more seriously of just quitting Wikipedia or intentionally breaking 3RR to get mysself banned. I had cleaned up the contemporary section of Historical Persecution by Christians and moved one sentence from there to Separation of church and state in the United States. It is about George H. W. Bush, who is supposed to have said: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." I expanded this slightly, the last revision can be found in this revision, bottom section. However, two other editors are of the opinion that it shouldn't be included in the article. They want to move this to American Atheists, but I did not just cleanup one POV Fork to create another. They won't even allow the time for a discussion, although in this case I think I have shown the intention to compromise. I should probably really care less, but this is not a complex scholarly discussion, but a simple question whether the debate about a statement that an American president allegdly made about an issue is notable enough to be mentione the respective article. If Wikipidia is not able to sort this out, there would no be much point in editing, would it? I would really appreciate your advise, best regards, Zara1709 (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would tend to support a brief discussion of the statement in Separation of church and state in the United States. But there is room for debate, of course. It isn't right for these other editors to refuse to debate the question, but most importanly, you should try not to care enough about details like this to consider quitting Wikipedia over them. There are good reasons to quit Wikipedia, but such quibbles are really just business as usual. Keep in mind that Wikipedia can be edited by absolutely everyone, so what do you expect... This is both Wikipedia's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. We are here to get as much out of the strength part as we can while being bogged down by the weakness part as little as possible. That's not always working out, but it often is. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I guess, you are right, but I am just to much of an Either/Or person. Cleaning up that Bush issue wasn't that hard, although I still don't understand why someone who is familiar with Wikipedia would rather head for an edit war instead of searching a few additional sources himself. But having your talk page on my watchlist I realised that edtiting Wikipedia could be even much more controversial. Have you actually counted how many RFCs are there about you? I haven't taken the time to look at them closely, but they seem to be unjustified.
- In any case, I will have to limit myself to a few hours a week for editing Wikipedia. Where I currently am, the exams are coming up, and since I am taking them in French, participating in prolonged discussions on the English Wikipedia is not particularly helpful. Zara1709 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- sure, WP can be and is edited by "complete maniacs" (see Jimbo Wales quote below) as well as by the infantile, spiteful, confused and the just bloody stupid. Once these realize they can't just have their way and that there are (gasp) rules, of course they try to bend the rules and just generally try to keep complaining and sounding victimized until people give up in disgust. I am amazed how many people apply this strategy in real life on a daily basis (just be an asshole consistently, and people will give you what you want eventually), and you can't expect them to do any better online. In my book, this betrays a flaw in upbringing: healthy individuals shed this sort of behaviour at about six years of age. But since this is an imperfect world, those of us who are mentally adult end up pulling the weights of those who aren't. dab (𒁳) 12:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Albus Dumbledore edits
Hey, Dab, I thought I would give you a heads-up about a comment I posted in Talk:Albus Dumbledore. Following up on a comment by another user, it appears that you posted an apparent connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. I read and re-read your successive postings before and after it, to see if perhaps there was some incredibly wry wit intended. I must confess that I am at a loss as to find it, if it were intended. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not connected, and I think you might wish to return to the talk page in question, tender an apology and strike through the offending text. You may not have intended to offend others with your comment, but offended they were. I'm not gay, but i must confess that I, found your comment not only wrong, but categorically inappropriate. Could I get you to address the comment right away, please? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- great, it appears I have perpetrated another political uncorrectness. Please give me a break:
- I have immediately qualified the remark as inconsequential to the debate. I do not want to elaborate on it
- My mention of pedophilia was motivated by the "special" relationship of Dumbledore and Harry Potter specifically, not by any musings on a connection of homosexuality and pedophilia in general.
- I have commented on the question before in a context that was actually pertinent, viz. here and here. Anyone interested in my thoughts on the matter will find all I have to say on it there, without my needing to repeat myself. They will specifically find that I have actively counteracted attempts at gay-bashing by MoritzB (talk · contribs) et al., even though I had to conclude that the blanket statement "Homosexuality and pedophilia are not connected" is not tenable without qualification. For your convenience, I repeat my concluding remarks:
- All that Blanchard's study says is that a certain fraction of pedophiles prefer boys, and that this fraction is higher than the average percentage of gays in society. That's it. Now this can be abused for anti-gay progaganda, and we don't want that, but it is not, in itself, anti-gay. [...] this is a study on pedophiles, not on homosexuals. MoritzB quoted other studies that say incidence of pedophilia is about twice as high among homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. I don't know if the study is reliable, because the "anti-anti-gay vigilance" on Wikipedia have campaigned to remove the reference rather than citing criticism. Now look, it is still true in any case that "no evidence is available from this data that children are at greater risk to be molested by identifiable homosexuals than by other adults". Why? Because only 10% of child molesters are also homosexuals. From the pov of the victim, your chances are 90% that your molester is a hetero. Since there are only about 5% homosexuals in society at large, that might calculate to a 100% higher incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals. See what you can do with statistics? "no evidence that children are at greater risk to be molested by identifiable homosexuals" and "homosexuals are twice as likely to be child molesters" are both true statements according to these statistics, they are just given different spins. The anti-anti-gay brigade would do well to combat the spin, and not bona fide discussion of academic studies. I might add that they could do the combatting with a little more decorum and less hysteria.
- I do not intend to discuss the topic any further. I am not an expert, and I have no particular interest in the topic.
- dab (𒁳) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- With respect, if you are not an expert, you shouldn't be commenting on the subject matter, even in an attempt at humor. Your previous actions in stopping gay-bashing aside, your comments were not taken in the context that you intended, and were in fact viewed by two different editors with nothing else in common except for the wonderment that you would say such a thing.
- At the very least, you should address the comment, as it did not achieve the apparent Bag O' Clever you were shopping for. While I am assuming good faith on your part, qualifying your remark as "inconsequential" doesn't resolve or conclude the matter, which I can foresee escalating unless you take immediate action to address it. You need to clearly state that you - at best - were writing tongue-in-cheek commentary (at worst, you made a tremendous faux pas or are a creep that needs to be shown the door - personally, I don't believe the latter).
- Lastly, using Blanchard's study to defend your statement doesn't help your cause here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- are you an expert? I am not an expert, but I have made the effort to review academic studies on the topic. I give a full explanation of my comments right above, including context pointers to further research you were not even asking for. I have no idea what is supposed to be "creepy" about my comment, or how you can ask me to "address" my comment when I have just done so, or what my faux pas is supposed to consist of. I beg to submit that I consider it a "tremendous faux pas", if not a blatant personal attack, on the part of I do not exist (talk · contribs) to allege that I implied "all gays are pedophiles" when I have never done anything remotely like that. But I have no interest in seeking sanctions or otherwise pursuing the case. My position towards the question of the general relation of homosexuality and pedophilia, which is completely unrelated to my original comment, is laid out above. Precisely because I am not an expert and have no vested interest, my opinion is entirely based on academic studies by experts. I must conclude that you did not pay attention to what I write above. Please read it. I am not "using using Blanchard's study to defend my statement". The fictional relation of (sigh) Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore has nothing whatsoever to do with real-life studies of pedophilia. Ok? I could write an analysis of how Dumbledore's erratic behaviour towards Harry Potter, which repeatedly caused confusion and cast doubt on Dumbledore's feelings and character (it's in the text), will appear in a very different light if viewed on the premise of Dumbledore's homosexuality. This would be a case study, and a fictional case at that, and not any comment on pedophilia in general as "I do not exist" would like to allege. And I will not write such an analysis, because (a) it would be original research and (b) I am not too fond of Rowling and have better things to do than to write essays on books that I don't really like. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You wrote:
- "There is nothing in HP to suggest Dumbledore is gay (indeed, the implication opens up creepy scenarios of pedophilia, but this is beside the point..."
- I would submit that the "creepy scenario" connecting homosexuality and pedophilia was inadvertantly introduced by yourself, likely making a wry aside at another discussion, and you were essentially making the comparison that JKR noting Dumbledore's homosexuality was going to likely bring in those who would now make pedophilic connections. I am not saying you are one of these pathetic bags of SpringerMeat, Dab. I am saying that your edit was rather poorly crafted, and should be addressed in a proactive way. If it was not your intention to make that connection, it would seem in your best interest to fix the problem rather than argue your (or other folks') intentions. I assure you that my intentions in this matter are not to witchhunt, but merely to fix the problem; you are an admin, recognize that you've made a slight mistake and take steps to correct it, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Right. I find it in violation of NPOV to refer to those who propose a statistical correlation of homosexuality and pedophilia as "pathetic bags of SpringerMeat". This is the attitude I describe as "hysterical" above. But you are right that I, myself, do not propose such a hypothesis, although I am aware of its existence. My comment was indeed intended to gesture towards the near unavoidable event that people will make the connection, and I personally judge that Rowling's statement was ill-advised in the light of this. My comment expresses this and nothing else, and I fully stand by its wording. I resent attempts to twist my comments into something they do not say. I cannot "fix the problem" if people go out of their way to take offense. I appreciate your good faith in this, but unfortunately I must say I find you rather inflate the problem instead of helping to "fix" it. I am willing to apologize even for unintended offense I cause, but there are certain limits to empathy into reasonable cause for offense. I repeat that I do hold myself the insulted party in this, and that furthermore I have no desire to harp on it. I am not prepared to discuss on the level of "pathetic bags of SpringerMeat" and similar niceties. My actual take on the topics involved is now laid out here for anyone interested, and I trust that anyone taking the trouble to review it will go away reassured that I am neither a "creep" nor a "pathetic meatbag". I do not propose to do anything beyond that. dab (𒁳) 13:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- For my part, I apologize for my misunderstanding. I overreacted, and I'm sorry. - ∅ (∅), 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- that's very kind of you. On my part, let me apologize for any inadvertent offense I may have caused you. dab (𒁳) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, are you assuming that I'm calling you a "pathetic bags of SpringerMeat"? LOL! Not at all! Wow, when you go on the defensive, you go all out. I was referring to the anti-gay propoganda using the arguable connection that Blanchard referred to in the quote you provided. I certainly didn't count you amongst them. If I felt at all that you were that way, I wouldn't have bothered doing more than simply notifying you of an impending AN/I. Since I did not feel that you were like this, i wrote to you to let you know that some editors (three at last count) found the comment odd, and that you might want to nip the potential problem in the bud. nothing more. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- that's very kind of you. On my part, let me apologize for any inadvertent offense I may have caused you. dab (𒁳) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ancient Greece
Dear Dbachmann. Thanks for your attempts to straighten out Ancient Greece. As you may have ssen from the talk page, some of us are pondering to substantially rewrite that article, which remains rather poor. Would you have an interest in such a venture? To be entirely honst with you, I am not convinced that your strict century-by-century order is necessarily the non plus ultra, as it may fragment history to some extent, but I think that it's the best thing that can be done for the moment.
Question: Is it desirable for the article to be predominantly a historical summary? Next, should separate cultural aspects, like art, philosophy, literature, architecture (et c) be kept as separate sections, or be integrated with the general chronological text. I'm not asking suggestively, as I am quite unsure. athinaios (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree: my edits were optimized towards optimal benefit with minimal investment. The article does, as you say, remain comparatively poor. I do encourage you to invest effort in a substantial rewrite, but please keep in mind that we aim at a Wikipedia:Summary style article. Whatever you do, your rewrite should not feature lengthy prose paragraphs, just concise pointers to {{main}} articles. dab (𒁳) 16:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That one's a keeper
[2] Shamelessly stolen for my user page. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: we educate the world (one clueless choleric teenage nationalist at a time). :) dab (𒁳) 19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to do the honors in terms of fixing the "paragraph" supposedly supporting an Albanian-Pelasgian connection? I have a strange feeling that if either Tsourkpk or myself were to follow through with your critical review, then Taulant23 and other Albanian users might conduct more revert-wars under the guise of fending off "vandalism" and "Greek nationalism." In order to avoid such a possibility, I think it would be best if you fixed the "paragraph" since you have a more neutral approach towards solving this overall issue (plus it was your idea in the first place to break apart the "paragraph"). Overall, both Tsourkpk and myself agree with your critical review of the "paragraph" and would like for this dispute to end once and for all. Thank you for all of your help. Good luck in all of your endeavors. Deucalionite (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Albanian-Pelasgian connection it's to strong to be deleted nor to be one "theoretical connection". It's pathetic to pretend that this link is weak, in my opinion, deleting is uneducated, nationalistic, another Greek propaganda!--Taulant23 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- If the Albanian-Pelasgian connection is so strong, then why isn't there any direct literary and archaeological evidence to support it? I am beginning to think that everything that does not coincide with your views Taulant23 is considered "Greek propaganda" to you. I think you are just upset because there is direct evidence supporting a Greek-Pelasgian connection while your endeavors have produced nothing substantial to support an Albanian-Pelasgian connection. I told you before that you need direct physical evidence in order to prove your case. I explained it to you in a very nice and respectful manner, and you still continue promoting questionable content onto articles. Even though I at first supported the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section, there is no denying the fact that other users are not convinced by its contents since there is a significant lack of reliable scientific evidence. Please reconsider your stance my friend because sooner or later your actions will force other users to not want to speak to you at all. Deucalionite (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Taulant23 is required to strictly adhere to WP:RS and WP:TALK if he wants to oblige other editors to even consider his stuff. Taulant23, go to these pages and study them on your own time, like a grown-up. People will not hold your hand while you reluctantly wrap your mind around them. Then come back with a solidly referenced paragraph in brilliant English. Wikipedia isn't free highschool tutoring for internet junkies. Deliver quality or be ignored. dab (𒁳) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. By the way, are you going to take care of the "paragraph" or should Tsourkpk go ahead and do it? This issue is getting out of hand and Pirro Burri just decided to racially discriminate all Greeks who do not support the Albanian-Pelasgian connection. Best regards. Deucalionite (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- don't be so delicate :oP "Pelasgian" isn't even a well-defined term,. All we know about Pelasgian is that it had words in -issa and -inthos. So, it is a patently empty claim to postulate an "Albanian-Pelasgian" connection. Pure Obscurum per obscurius (aka antiquity frenzy), not worth the excitement. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Who said anything about being delicate? I understand that this whole issue is really not worth getting excited over. However, even you would agree that the nonsense associated with this specific non-issue has to stop before it gets worse. Nevertheless, I need to know whether or not you will follow through with your critical review of the "paragraph" (a "yes" or "no" answer would be nice). That's all. Regardless if the term "Pelasgian" is ill-defined (not surprising since the Pelasgians were not a perfectly unified unit), the Pelasgians article does not need unnecessary loose-ends. Deucalionite (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do invite you to go ahead with the article along the lines discussed on the talkpage, you don't need to ask for my permission. Regarding this BURRI character, if he spouts more racialist nonsense, he'll just be blocked, no sweat, let's not be distracted by trolls. --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for all of your help. I asked for your permission since it was your idea in the first place to break apart the "paragraph." Hey, I'm just giving credit where credit is due. That's all. Again, thanks for all your help. Bye. Deucalionite (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Dharmic Traditions revived as Indian Religion
Humming bird is playinga Havoc on Indian religions which he has redirected to Dharmic traditions.--Anish (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ya but check out this !!! This Dharmic (T)radition(s) is becoming a mess. By playing around with the capital letters and singular/ Plural wordings they have created following 3 articles to stick with their pet POV's. :
- Dharmic tradition - Disambig page
- Dharmic Tradition - Redirects to Indian religions#Common traits
- Dharmic Traditions - Redirects to Dharma
I think the consensus was reached on the first one. Something needs to be done on this one.--Anish (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- yes, this is confusing. All the capitalisation variants should redirect to the dab page. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Another Nutcase
Another nutcase has vandalised Dharmic tradition. I suggest you protect the Disambig page for some time.--Anish (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lurs.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lurs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mushroom (Talk) 08:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Index lists
Howdy. (Once more unto the breach.. ;) I was wondering if you could take a look at my hefty draft-summary at Wikipedia:Lists/Index lists. I'd appreciate your thoughts on:
- what the best way to discuss it is. (I'm currently planning on posting it at WP:VPP, and notifying everyone relevant I can find)
- how the draft could be improved or made clearer.
- and your initial thoughts on the issue itself, before I put it in front of a wider audience.
Much thanks. (reply wherever, I watchlist) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I've removed the new-namespace-proposal thread, as it was only serving to distract (thanks to Francis' smart comments). I invite you to refactor your last sentence ("... either to Portal:, or to a newly defined Index: or Contents: namespace."), to eliminate mention of it, in order to keep things short/clear, so that I can post the entire thread to VPP. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thread moved to the Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Turco-Mongol
Hi, is it possible for me to learn why you redirected the article Turco-Mongol to Altaic peoples? Of course, Turco-Mongols were Altaic as well, but the term refers to a specific society during the Middle Ages rather than a general identification. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- does it? Do you mean the Mongol Empire? All the more need for disambiguation. I am not sure about the "specific society" though. The "References" given just point to casual usage of "Turco-Mongol" in the context of the Mongolian Empire. The basic meaning is "Turkic and Mongolic". If there are, indeed, more specific meanings, this should by all means be mentioned on the disambiguation page. The important thing is that the page is a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Mongol Empire and the sequel, including the Golden Horde and Timurid eras. I scanned the sources once again, what I can see is that they refer to specific eras rather than a generalization. And of course I should state that Altaic peoples do not solely consist of Turks and Mongols, so the term Turco-Mongol cannot be an equivalent of Altaic. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are also 63,000 Tungusic people. No, your references just say that the Mongol Empire happened to consist of both Turkic and Mongol tribes, they do not say that "Turko-Mongol" has a meaning of "medieval Mongol Empire" in particular. The "references" given are obviously just the result of a google books search for the term. If you insist, Turco-Mongol can be a disambiguation page separate from Altaic peoples, but I really fail to see a point in that since both will be practically identical in scope. dab (𒁳) 21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The number is not important. The fact is that the term Turco-Mongol does not suffice to correspond the term Altaic. But, I think you have right at one point. I gazed on the references once more. Even if the sources are based on specific eras, the related term is likely to be used as a general one. So, your last suggestion seems comfortable to me. Then, the disambiguation page you prepared is ok. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do specifically mention the term (and the "Turco-Mongol Empire") at Altaic peoples now. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 21:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Request for edit summary
Hi. Just a quick request. It would be great if you could use the edit summary more often in your edits, especially more subtle ones, when you do redirects (need to explain why), and propose merges. Things can indeed be seen from the diff, but having an edit summary on one's watchlist can be very informative nevertheless. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- you are right. But I often have a complicated queue of edits to do in my head, with lots of open browser tabs, and I type tab-enter habitually for edits I deem uncontroversial. When I am aware that my edit may raise eyebrows, I always give a summary. But I accept your criticism. Especially when editing an article where I am not "known" to people watching, I should take more time to give a courtesy summary. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
I won't spam you with a bunch of code or pictures, just a simple thank you for your kind words and participation in my RfA. Thank you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that some of the material in Development of religion/Origins of religion is better suited in the article Theories of religion.
See my first try User:Andries/Theories_of_religion. I could use some help from you for that article if you have time.
Andries (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- looks good. Should perhaps be singular theory of religion per MoS, but this definitely has potential. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. can you take a look at this article? I thought your edits on the now defunct Mithras article where fair, but our friend User:Fullstop is up to his old tricks again— this is the third time I've have to contact an administrator to deal with him. Thanks in advance. Fennessy (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Explaining the bot's behaviour
See here. The bot was worried about not being able to find a link back to the article (it fails to recognise redirects left behind by moves). The bot wasn't judging the rationale - they are not that clever yet. A similar case (missing colon after move), can be seen here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I'm currently reading "Inside Language - Linguistic and Aesthetic Theory in Tolkien" by Ross Smith, and in the series editor's preface, Honegger refers to the following 2006 paper: Dieter Bachmann and Thomas Honegger, "Ein Mythos fur das 20. Jahrhundert: Blut, Rasse und Erbgedachtnis bei Tolkien." Hither Shore 2:13-39. Is that you by any chance? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am sure the bot can be taught to just leave alone any image tagged with {{Non-free book cover}}. Yes, I co-authored that article. I was going to resurrect Tolkien and racism (deleted as OR last year) some time, and perhaps work on genetic memory, but I am spending far too much time on-wiki as it is. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
More advice
Okay, here's the thing 'Bachmann, your comment may have been in response to some serious trolling, I'm not even going to argue about that, cus I don't even KNOW, but your response is not hitting your mark. Okay? You end up lumping a lot of other people in, who aren't bad, and who don't live in "shit-holes" in to your attacks. You did the same thing with the Afrocentrism article. The way I see it, man, you're mostly making the right calls... but, the things you say and the way you come across ends up pissing off a whole lot of other people who just don't deserve it. Think about that. And then you end up with everyone against you, doing RfCs on your ass and complaining. Why not just avoid all that? Be a big man! Admit what you did wrong and defend what you did right. It's OK to admit that you overstepped the line a bit, you know? And if you really think it's OK to be racist then, I don't know, maybe you should think about that. It's not like the trolls "win" if you do that, in fact, the trolls are winning right now because with the way you attack people everyone feels sorry for them. I'm saying you've gotta keep the upper hand. I'm really trying to help you, man, but if you want to just blow me off... OK. Whatever. (And please don't move this off your user page, I want people to know that someone is trying to reach out to you and be nice about all of this. OK? So don't move it. I'm watchin' your page to see if you get any of this.) JJJamal (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- fine. How about you show your qualities in producing quality edits instead of lecturing me, and we'll get along just fine. I have not attacked anyone. I have no idea why you want to discuss a trolling incident dating to 2005 with me. I frankly have no idea what you want from me. You know what? I have been known to be very quick to apologize to people whom I gave cause for offence. I will not apologize to random people who go out of their way to find some political incorrectness in my edits because they find they have no case in an on-topic debate. I'll tell you something else: I resent the implication that I am a racist, when I am in fact one of the most active editors combatting racism on Wikipedia. If I was as much into bitching at people over offense taken, I would now pester you for the next three years or so to take that back. So, if you want to be "nice", you have a chance to apologize right now. If you insist that it is "racism" to ask that the same rules apply to everyone on Wikipedia, regardless of their ethnicity (that is: you need to deliver encyclopedicity, even if you insist that you are "ethnic" and thus the rules magically don't apply to you), I am happy to let you cherish your belief and be happy with whatever it is you are doing, but I would just ask you to stop posting to my talkpage, because you really have nothing to say I would want to hear. I am not interested in having general ethical or philosophical discussions with anyone happens to stumble on my talkpage and chats me up, pulling out random disputes of three years ago with which they have no involvement, and no background knowledge, whatsoever, even if they don't insult me first. I am nonplussed that you apparently think your elaborations are in any way useful or constructive. I'll assume good faith, but I am afraid that sufficiently advanced naiveté is truly indistinguishable from trolling, so I have no way of knowing which applies to you. This isn't relevant, since I am interested in neither. dab (𒁳) 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope that you will respond
- In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration. WP:RFC
futurebird (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the page yet. You are right that people usually defend themselves in RfC's. I have defended myself against this sort of stuff many times over, and I consider it a waste of time to invest time in stating again what people can just read up in my talk archive. But I will certainly leave a note to that effect on the RfC page once I get around to have a look at it. People are of course free to submit anything they like to arbitration. I am not aware I am in breach of any policy. No, not even the famous WP:CIVIL if that is tempered by WP:UCS (as opposed to waved around as a red herring). I am dedicated to uphold high standards of encyclopedicity precisely in line with policy. If people don't like my tone or my character, I daresay I can say the same of countless accounts without spending time wikilawyering about it. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have looked it now. Wow. Quite a lot of nasty insults and character smearing. If I believed in whining about WP:CIVIL, I could go on for pages about it. I might consider asking for blanking of this page after closure due to calculated character assassination. So, futurebird, have fun in Bakaman's team, I suppose. If you should wish to resume encyclopedic editing, I'll still be here. But you can't side with Bakaman's "tag, you're an obnoxious racist" approach (why hasn't anyone permabanned this guy yet?) and expect me to take you seriously as an editor at the same time. dab (𒁳) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Problem in your lunar phases template?
Greetings, Dbachmann. I should like to congratulate you on a most beautiful and extremely useful template (I generally do not use the word "cool", or else I would have). I am referring, of course, to your lunar phases indicator. I would even add it to one of my user pages, but there is no suitable space for it yet. In any case, the main reason I am leaving this message is the possibility of a problem in this page—the bold red letters do not look like they are there for a decorative purpose. I thought that you might want to fix whatever is wrong with it.
Keep it up! Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 09:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- well, yes, you are not supposed to transclude User:Dbachmann/moon1, you are supposed to transculde User:Dbachmann/moon, which in turn transcludes the moon1 one. Please note that the percentage given is very inaccurate ("0th order perturbation" -- i.e. none at all, the moon is assumed to just go around in a circle. I'll try to improve this some time). dab (𒁳) 10:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I had already realised that; exactly because User:Dbachmann/moon1 is transcluded in User:Dbachmann/moon, I thought that any problems with the former might also affect the latter. In any case, any improvement that is performed on the template is for the best. I would help you, but I know very little about orbits. Is that Newton fellow still alive? You could ask him.
- Thank you for your prompt response. Waltham, The Duke of 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- it's not a problem. moon1 takes an argument q ("quarter"): {{User:Dbachmann/moon1|q=1}} means "1st quarter" (50% phase). I just separated "calculation" and display in two templates, so that if you do a smarter calculation formula, you can still link it to the display template. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- If it produces a better result, it is acceptable. This is a general rule in Wikipedia. That is, until someone somehow manages to crash the servers. :-) In any case, it has been nice meeting you.
- By the way, would you be, by any chance, interested in joining WikiProject Succession Box Standardization? We are severely understaffed, and thus I grab every chance I get to try and recruit people. It is nothing personal, I assure you. Waltham, The Duke of 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- at the moment I have enough (rather, too much) on my hands, but I am making a mental note to look into it. dab (𒁳) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good enough for me. It is quite interesting, you know, for people interested in templates, categorisation, history, and not only. And you get to do a lot of (article) travelling. I know I have. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 10:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- at the moment I have enough (rather, too much) on my hands, but I am making a mental note to look into it. dab (𒁳) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- it's not a problem. moon1 takes an argument q ("quarter"): {{User:Dbachmann/moon1|q=1}} means "1st quarter" (50% phase). I just separated "calculation" and display in two templates, so that if you do a smarter calculation formula, you can still link it to the display template. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt response. Waltham, The Duke of 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Capitalisation debate
Are you still involved in this discussion? Ilkali (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think I have conclusively addressed the question. I could repeat the same points over and over, but I don't see why I should. dab (𒁳) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just FYI, dab: I've taken it upon myself to move forward with reporting Ilkali's behavior on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I hope this was the right thing to do. Apparently this is a recurring pattern that has resulted in blockages and page lockdowns in the past. Craig zimmerman 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth...
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For trying to inject a bit of neutrality and common sense into some of the murkier areas of Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC) |
Obviously this makes you evil in the eyes of Wikipedians of the Zapp Brannigan persuasion. As the great man himself pondered: "What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
Plus, as an admin, you really should be spending more time with your colleagues on the truly essential matters [3]. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- thanks Folantin, I will display this barnstar with particular pride (this should be the "Armed neutrality" barnstar -- neutral but not non-belligerent :p). Although I am shamed that I am not always up-to-date with the latest wheel war scandals among my fellow-admins dab (𒁳) 13:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Dbachmann, I think we should try community enforceable mediation to resolve the issues raised by the RfC. I'm not really interested in taking about things you said back in 2005, but I do think that there should be some kind of resolution to this process as myself and others are not satisfied with the RfC. (See the comments on the RfC talk page) Are you willing to try this? futurebird 16:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have never heard of "CEM". Futurebird, it is very simple: I am not aware you and I are in a content dispute at this moment. To the contrary, I think your contributions are generally quite good. If you have an issue of content to bring up, pray do so and I will reply. If you have an issue related to my "conduct" concerning you, bring it up and I will reply. I do not care if you communicate with me directly or via a "mediator", my replies will be identical. I will not discuss past disputes with random third parties, because that would mean there is no upper limit of the time I may be forced to invest just to repeat myself. If you are interested in the 2005 Rajput dispute, review my talk archives (good places to start are here, here and here), and the relevant article histories. I intend to maximize my wiki time invested in producing encyclopedic content, and will consequently aim to minimize the time I spend wikilawyering, forum-shopping or prancing around with problem users such as deeceevoice (I have said so already on the rfc page, and you are making me repeat myself even now). If you are for some reason not satisfied with my reply and think I should be chastised for some reason or other, feel free to file an arbitration case. dab (𒁳) 16:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you really responded to the concerns that I raised at the RfC, so I won't repeat the comments I made there here again. That's why there is still a dispute (in my eyes). Even in your response to me just now you've been unnecessarily rude and dismissive by implying that I'm just "wikilawyering, forum-shopping or prancing around with problem users such as deeceevoice" Calling someone a "problem user" is rude, accusing me of "forum shopping" is unfair, and in general you're not taking my concerns seriously and just see my concerns as "wikilawyering" and that is hurtful. If you raised similar issues with me I would not try to put all of the blame on others, I would listen and consider what you were saying and try to find a compromise. That is all that I'm asking. futurebird 16:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- futurebird, I appreciate our approaches on how to interact with other people, in particular wrt "political correctness" differ greatly. I can accept this. I am not asking you to like me. You are misinterpreting my reply. I did not allege anything regarding your behaviour, beyond that I think your contributions are fair. I was saying that I avoid forum-shopping and wikilawyering, in order to explain my restricting to a bare minimum my reaction to the RfC on what I consider a non-issue. You, of course, are free to spend your time on Wikipedia on whatever you like. The point of my answer is, I have no wish for prolongued debates over perceived "rudeness". Wikipedia isn't a social network. WP:CIVL in my book means, don't shout obscenities at people, don't bitch at them, respect their general outlook as long as they don't disrupt the project. That's it. Regarding all and any content issues, I believe in WP:SPADE: if an edit is bullshit, I will call bullshit. If an editor is being disruptive, I will call them disruptive (or alternatively "problem editors" or "trolls"). Regarding social networking and friends lists, I am not interested. I would like to be able to collaborate with you amicably, but if this isn't possible, I am just as happy to keep our interaction to a bare minimum necessary to make points about content. thanks, dab (𒁳) 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you really responded to the concerns that I raised at the RfC, so I won't repeat the comments I made there here again. That's why there is still a dispute (in my eyes). Even in your response to me just now you've been unnecessarily rude and dismissive by implying that I'm just "wikilawyering, forum-shopping or prancing around with problem users such as deeceevoice" Calling someone a "problem user" is rude, accusing me of "forum shopping" is unfair, and in general you're not taking my concerns seriously and just see my concerns as "wikilawyering" and that is hurtful. If you raised similar issues with me I would not try to put all of the blame on others, I would listen and consider what you were saying and try to find a compromise. That is all that I'm asking. futurebird 16:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Except for the fact the Deeceevoice wasn't even being disruptive, you were. futurebird 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- she has a record of blatant disruption reaching back to 2005, and is under arbcom enforced probation. Any credit she may once have had must have run out some time in 2006. This isn't the topic under discussion. You want to stand up for dcv, you are free to do that. I am sure that if I had behaved in anything like dcv's usual hysteria for five minutes, my sorry ass would have been speedily de-adminned, and rightly so. I fully accept that I am being held to higher standards than, again, notorious problem editors. Again, if you feel I should be under arbcom enforced probation due to some disruptive behaviour on my part, file an arbitration case. Alternatively, bring up grievances you may have with me, here on my talkpage. So far, you only seem to complain I am not being chatty enough on "my" RfC. I explained I have no interest in chatting. Is there anything else you would like to bring up? Perhaps something actually pertaining to questions of content? Otherwise I suggest we drop this conversation and go back to our respective pursuits connected with writing an encyclopedia. dab (𒁳) 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how we can collaborate when it seems thatWP:SPADE applies to you but not to me or Deeceevoice. Can I use WP:SPADE? I don't think so. I'd just get banned. futurebird 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. People called me "obnoxious racist" on "my" RfC -- which isn't SPADE but a blatant personal attack, and I don't know anyone got banned over that. You called my behaviour "disruptive" and nobody banned you. DCV's idea of SPADE seems to be the typographical equivalent of assorted animal noises, which is her problem. What on earth do you mean you "would get banned" if you spoke your mind? Conversely, when did I call anyone "obnoxious" or similar niceties? This entire hubbub is due to my calling bullshit at blatant spin doctoring and muddying the issue at Afrocentrism. I didn't insult anyone, I asked people to not insult readers' intelligence. Look, you apparently live in a world so different from mine that we aren't able to communicate on matters like civility or etiquette. I don't care. Our interaction should be restricted to citation of academic literature. If I present some opinion without sourcing it to academic publications, you will be perfectly entitled to object. dab (𒁳) 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how we can collaborate when it seems thatWP:SPADE applies to you but not to me or Deeceevoice. Can I use WP:SPADE? I don't think so. I'd just get banned. futurebird 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom
I have filed a case at arbcom, you can find it here please sign so that they know I notified you. futurebird 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Armenian religion
I think I've read somewhere that Christianization of Armenia is already planned as a separate article. I'm already due to work with Eupator on Cilician Armenia and then Tigranes the Great, so it might be a while before I get round to chipping in there, but I do have some sources. It would be the best place to detail the conversion stories surrounding Saint Gregory and maybe centralise the discussion about the "firstness" of Armenian Christianity. There's also one crucial element missing from the Wikipedia articles I've seen, which is the fact that Tiridates' decision to choose Christianity as the state religion marked a major break with the traditional Iranian cultural influence on Armenia and increased the potential for conflict with the Sassanids (who had recently adopted the Neo-Zoroastrian faith of Mazdaism as their officially sanctioned religion). There's plenty of other things that could go in (the relationship with Syriac Christianity and the influence on the vocabulary of the Armenian language). Might make a substantial article. --Folantin 15:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- sure, Christianization of Armenia can always be expanded into a full article. The redirect is just provisional. There's a lot of interesting material we can discuss there. It's a pity Armenian literature only begins a full century after Christianization, so that most details will probably remain speculative forever. I appreciate that Arsacid Armenia may indeed well have been the first "state" to impose Christianity: the "first" claim isn't without merit at all, it is just slightly misleading. Tiridates III seems to have set a trend indeed: Armenia 314, Aksum 325, Georgia 337, 350s Goths(?), and finally 380 Rome. dab (𒁳) 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there's plenty that could fill that article, including the fact that there were already quite a few Armenian converts to Christianity before the 4th century. Incidentally - unrelated to this topic, but related to the Caucasus region - do you know anything about Ossetian mythology? There's already an article on the Narts (heroes), but I was planning to put a simple list of Ossetian deities. I'm no expert on this subject, but I have a few things by way of source material. I've seen you editing articles on Indo-European and other mythologies, so I wondered if it was in your area. Ossetian religion seems like an interesting mixture of Christianity and paganism (rather like some Latin American versions of Catholicism, I presume). --Folantin 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know nothing of the topic. The Ossetians count as the "last Sarmatians" and their folk religion would have a Scytho-Sarmatian substrate, but of course there will be no pre-medieval records. We need a Saint Hetag article (move Wasterzhi?) Category:Scythian and Sarmatian deities, Altaic mythology. dab (𒁳) 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I doubt if there are many pre-19th century records, let alone pre-medieval. Ossetian legends attracted Georges Dumézil, who saw close parallels with Norse mythology (that's just one interpretation, of course). Thanks anyway. I didn't know some of those stubs on Ossetian gods such as Wasterzhi and Wasilla existed. Half the problem is the transliteration - there doesn't seem to be much agreement on how to render Ossetian names in English, so I was looking in the wrong place (my primary source is in French, plus I have some Russian material). I've got an account by a British journalist of a visit to Saint Hetag's Grove near Vladikavkaz in the 1990s. Apparently, it's tremendously popular nowadays. I'll consolidate all my info in one article (Ossetian deities?), then see whether it's worth splitting it or merging the other stuff into it. Cheers. --Folantin 17:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know nothing of the topic. The Ossetians count as the "last Sarmatians" and their folk religion would have a Scytho-Sarmatian substrate, but of course there will be no pre-medieval records. We need a Saint Hetag article (move Wasterzhi?) Category:Scythian and Sarmatian deities, Altaic mythology. dab (𒁳) 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there's plenty that could fill that article, including the fact that there were already quite a few Armenian converts to Christianity before the 4th century. Incidentally - unrelated to this topic, but related to the Caucasus region - do you know anything about Ossetian mythology? There's already an article on the Narts (heroes), but I was planning to put a simple list of Ossetian deities. I'm no expert on this subject, but I have a few things by way of source material. I've seen you editing articles on Indo-European and other mythologies, so I wondered if it was in your area. Ossetian religion seems like an interesting mixture of Christianity and paganism (rather like some Latin American versions of Catholicism, I presume). --Folantin 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've started Scythian religion. This will mostly be based on archaeological evidence. There may be some material in classical ethnography, nevertheless. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
ru:Три пирога is an interesting article I was able to locate on ru-wiki. dab (𒁳) 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've started a central article on Ossetian deities. More to come (plus I've got to check I've got the Ossetian names right). The major gods, especially Wasterzhi, can have their own articles, of course. The new article needs putting in the right categories (is it really Asian mythology? Ossetia is just within Europe. On the other hand the religion is supposedly Iranic in origin). I'll check that Russian article out later. Cheers. --Folantin 18:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
this is rather difficult... all the online sources, sch as they are, seem to be in Russian. I am not sure if it wouldn't be wiser to merge this with the Nart article -- there is simply no line that can be drawn between Narts and deities here. dab (𒁳) 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- According to Dumézil (and this is certainly reflected in the stories he translated), the Narts are definitely human heroes (even though they possess many superhuman qualities). They are eventually destroyed by God (Khusaw, I guess) for their presumption. The figures I have called "deities" are more difficult to pin down. They are definitely supernatural, some are more godlike than others, but are often identified with Christian saints. I think it's a problem with terminology. They aren't the same as the Narts though - they're certainly higher-ranking than them and (I assume) immortal. --Folantin 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see you've moved it to Ossetian mythology. Good idea. --Folantin 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice Quote...
I ran across this marvelous quote from Jimbo Wales and just wanted to share:
- "When I am asked to look into cases of "admin abuse" and I choose to do so, I generally find myself astounded at how nice we are to complete maniacs, and for how long." - Jimbo Wales
Aryaman (☼) 04:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Jimbo Wales is a wise man. His sly, serene wisdom is a significant factor in Wikipedia's success. dab (𒁳) 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you please give me hint, to which extent the hypothesis that (Proto-)Dravidan was the language of the Indus Valley Civilization is considered accepted in the scientific community? Out of my layman's knowledge of this topic, I'd judge that language and script of the IVC are still undeciphered and the Dravidan hypothesis has at best minority support. --Pjacobi 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Recall
Hey D., sorry for the delay getting back to you on this. At this time I have no interest in seeking your recall as admin. As far as I can see, the issues I have with some of your behaviours have little to do with your position as admin. I haven't seen you explicitly misuse your admin position in disputes. I think an argument could be made for your implicit use of the status and power of your admin position as a point of manipulation in editing and content conflicts though. However this is more a perception than something I have any tangible examples of.
More worrisome to me is your insistence at times on inserting what appears to be purely WP:OR information and perspectives into articles. I say OR because you seem unable to produce sources when asked and actually seem to resent anyone asking for sources. My perception (and I make no claim to accuracy in this matter) is that you think references and sourcing is for other editors to do, not you. Because of this, many of your edits lack verifiability beyond your assertions. And because of this, I've seen a number of cases where your additions literally make no sense in the context of the articles. This is, to me, a deeply troubling lack and flaw in an editor as prolific and dedicated as you seem to be. Particularly because you are so prolific and often attempt extensive renovation of articles or groups of related articles, this introduces your OR and unsourced claims into a whole series of articles.
In your comments on my talk page, you said "But it is hardly possible to dispute that the articles I do address end up being improved. This is my single aim, and this is how I measure my success." Unfortunately, my experience/view is that many of the improvements are at least partially a result of the reaction by other editors to your edits, often to correct inaccuracies or POV introduced by you. I don't intend this to be a harsh across-the-boards indictment of your contributions, only that this is my observation of those edits I've witnessed. I don't think of myself as an exceptional or special Wikipedia editor with a unique insight into this matter. My point being: if I see these things in your edits, I suspect I'm not the only one who sees it.
I hadn't really intended to say all this and much of it I've already said to you on another talk page so I doubt it is new info to you. None of this touches on your many good actions on Wikipedia such as your apparent willingness to persistently challenge POV and fringe theory pushers. Please don't take this note as either an attack on you or as wholesale criticism; it is intended to outline some of my concerns about your actions. Pigman☿ 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- well, I can only say that I wholeheartedly endorse WP:NOR and WP:RS, and that I insist on adhering to these to the point of sounding like a broken record. Thus, if you can point out any edit of mine that qualify as OR, I will immediately apologize, and either take them back or provide appropriate references. I am not sure which edits of mine you are talking about. I suspect this surrounds a single unwise edit I did some time back at the CR article? Which I recognized as unwise and didn't try to push on the article as soon as the problem was pointed out to me? If there are other problematic edits of mine you are aware of, I would be obliged if you brought them up. I am, in any case, ever so much more happy to discuss questions of content than to prance around with people musing on abstract questions of civility or style. thanks, dab (𒁳) 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
And now for something completely different. Looking for something to say about you and your detractors, I came to that page. I noticed your excellent analysis there (note that I live in Flanders and can boast a rather good command of the Dutch language). The following may be interesting to you:
1)Koenraad Elst has recently been taken to an Antwerp hospital, where he is now waiting for a heart transplant - that is too bad, since it means we may have to be careful on human grounds
2)you wrote on the talk page "but it turns out that Elst acted as "Islam expert" for the Vlaams Blok, appearing as "guest speaker" at Neo-Nazi conferences". In fact, there is a book where this is explicitly claimed: Jan De Zutter "Heidenen voor het blok - Radicaal rechts en het moderne Heidendom" (Heathens in favour of the Blok - the radical Right and modern Heathenism), ISBN 90 5240 582 4 (Published by Uitgeverij © Uitgeverij Houtekiet, Antwerpen / Baarn; 2000; 174 pages)
The author claims on p 17 that KE, introduced as a specialist on Islam, held a speech on Islam at the same Vlaams Blok Colloquium in 1992 where the radical right party presented its 70 point programme.
We do not even need to quote the book to prove this, because KE himself quotes this episode and De Zutter's book as the origin of the belief that he is extreme-right or a racist or the islam specialist of the Vlaams Blok, which he claims not to be (to use a cliché here, "he is not the only one to do so"). He once made this claim in an article in the right-wing, pardon me, conservative, magazine "Nucleus": look for "mijn standpunt". In this article, he claims that the Vlaams Blok programme THEN was not what he proposed, or what he would have proposed (though according to him, now in 2001, they are getting closer to his viewpoint, surprise) but he does defend the party in no uncertain way: "the other parties preferred to ignore the problem" "the big bad wolf". In his last two paragraphs KE accuses the liberals Guy Verhofstadt, Patrick Dewael, Karel De Gucht and Louis Michel of demonizing the "right-wing opposition" and wanting to outlaw it - comparing them to Torquemada and Mohammed. --Paul Pieniezny 13:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- thanks -- I will be grateful if you can look into this, since my command of the Dutch language is wanting to say the least... Since I had no intention to unduly smear Elst, I don't see why our coverage should depend on whether he is in hospital at present. dab (𒁳) 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to incorporate this. the problem I am having is that the inline refs in the article are not how they should be (there are links to internet sites there, and they do not have info like access date) - De Zutter's book should be under a heading "Source", but as the article is now, tehre is far too much bibliography, and not enough source. But I am thinking of fixing that, when I have some spare time. In teh meantime, could you have a look at the wording? Is it NPOV enough? --Paul Pieniezny 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- "comparing them to Torquemada and Mohammed" is actually rather funny. "You soft-headed liberal hippies, you are worse than ... than ... Mohammed!" -- somehow reminds me of how I keep being accused of "racism" by, to put it politely, ethnocentrists :p dab (𒁳) 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I noted that funny resemblance too, and mentioned it in my comment on the RFA. Only one of those people quoted is a left-wing liberal by the way (Karel De Gucht - I do not know whether their articles make this clear, you will have to trust me on this, but I suppose American readers here would not even have a clue what is meant by "right-wing liberal").
- "comparing them to Torquemada and Mohammed" is actually rather funny. "You soft-headed liberal hippies, you are worse than ... than ... Mohammed!" -- somehow reminds me of how I keep being accused of "racism" by, to put it politely, ethnocentrists :p dab (𒁳) 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to incorporate this. the problem I am having is that the inline refs in the article are not how they should be (there are links to internet sites there, and they do not have info like access date) - De Zutter's book should be under a heading "Source", but as the article is now, tehre is far too much bibliography, and not enough source. But I am thinking of fixing that, when I have some spare time. In teh meantime, could you have a look at the wording? Is it NPOV enough? --Paul Pieniezny 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The 70 points on immigration were for a long time seen as the constitution of the Vlaams Blok, in 1996 they were slightly updated. In recent years, a number of Vlaams Belang leaders have claimed that the programme is no longer valid, and have advocated views which seem to come straight from Elst's writings. The 1992 programme specifically assumed that moslims could not integrate and called for the foundation of Islamic schools with Turkish and Arabic as teaching languages, to facilitate the return of muslim children born in Belgium. Today, many leaders seem to adhere to Elst's belief that moslims can be integrated if only they quit being moslims - basically Elst's version. The party even fielded a few (ex-)moslims on its lists for the municipal elections. Another interesting parallel between Elst and the present Vlaams Belang is the attitude towards Jews. While in the early '90s many cadres of Vlaams Blok were antisemitic (Elst claims that this was because of the legacy of world war II) and the party only supported Israel, because that is the place where all Jews belong, in recent years the party even tried to get Jewish votes, particularly from the orthodox community in Antwerp (the least integrated part of Belgian Jewry, therefore).
- This change of heart towards the Jewish community by a party whose earliest members had a connection with neo-nazism (even Elst concedes that in the link I gave you) can sometimes lead to very strange, almost schizophrenic situations. On this page which is obviously rather sympathetic to the Vlaams Belang and its views (the first picture there is of the leader of the Vlaams Belang being arrested at an outlawed anti-Islam meeting in Brussels), one article calls the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism "an instrument of the Zionist world dictatorship's inquisition" (Torquemada again, it is in a title which you can find by searching for Siegfried Verbeke) whereas the preceding article is about Filip Dewinter's interview in Jewish Week and another one quotes the Centre's figures on violence against Jews in Belgium to score an anti-islamic point. The article by Koenraad Elst there is about a girl of Sri Lankan roots fired for racism at her weekend jobs because she stood as a Vlaams Belang candidate at the lasty election. KE argues that the Centre should use its habitual inquisitional style to drag the employers before the courts for racism.
- I suppose all this more or less proves that the assertion made on the talk page that KE is not really known in Belgium, is in fact not entirely correct: he is largely ignored in scientific circles, but rather well-known in Flemish extreme-right circles. His ties with neopaganism seem not be so well-known, however. One Vlaams Belang blogger (Björn Roose) on the occasion of KE being taken to hospital, wrote "I am not a Roman Catholic myself but I hope Koenraad's gods will stand by him" . Which looks like he knows about KE's Hindu links, but not about his neopaganism. Though I agree, that is OR not suitable for the article on such flimsy evidence.
- By the way, on Dutch wiki a paragraph on Elst's links to radical Hindus (!) got deleted because it was unsourced and claimed to be libel (there is no fixed BLP rule on Dutch wiki). The whole text now looks like a hagiography of an esteemed ethnical scientist. Do you have one good link that could take care of that? Dutch Wiki has no problem at all with sources in English, French or German. --Paul Pieniezny 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thracians
Hello. Could you please take a look at Thracians? The Origins section mentions 'proto-Thracian' tombs (a Thracian dagger as well) dating back to 3,000 BC while also claiming that the Thracians (Thracians-to-be?) arrived in Thrace and conquered the indigenous people 'sometime around 1,500 BC'. Sorry for bothering you (again) but you are knowledgeable about the subject so I thought I'd ask. 3rdAlcove 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- no problem. I can tell you from my armchair, so to speak, that these dates are pure speculation. We just need to known whose speculation per WP:CITE. dab (𒁳) 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the belated response. Yeah, what I found curious was the disagreement between the two dating views. The first one (citing this and this) mentions that proto-Thracian culture began to form in Thrace during about 3,000 BC. On the other hand, the second (citing this) wants the Thracians invading (or migrating to) the area of Thrace around 1,500 BC. Perhaps you could shed some light on this, maybe I'm just missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdAlcove (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- it's just a question of terminology. For Indo-Europeanists, "Thracian" refers to the (satem?) Thracian language, which cannot be assumed to predate the Iron Age. For archaeologists, "Thracian" simply stands for "archaeological continuity in Bulgaria", which can indeed be argued to go back to the early Bronze Age. In this case, "Thracian" is just a conventional label and has nothing much to do with the Θρακοι of Herodotus. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your explanation and time. 3rdAlcove 12:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- it's just a question of terminology. For Indo-Europeanists, "Thracian" refers to the (satem?) Thracian language, which cannot be assumed to predate the Iron Age. For archaeologists, "Thracian" simply stands for "archaeological continuity in Bulgaria", which can indeed be argued to go back to the early Bronze Age. In this case, "Thracian" is just a conventional label and has nothing much to do with the Θρακοι of Herodotus. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the belated response. Yeah, what I found curious was the disagreement between the two dating views. The first one (citing this and this) mentions that proto-Thracian culture began to form in Thrace during about 3,000 BC. On the other hand, the second (citing this) wants the Thracians invading (or migrating to) the area of Thrace around 1,500 BC. Perhaps you could shed some light on this, maybe I'm just missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdAlcove (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
merger proposals
You use a certain template (I can't insert it here becasue it screws up the page) when proposing mergers, but Help:Merging and moving pages gives different templates. In addition, it suggests to put a tag on both pages that are considered to be merged. Is there some policy that I am missing? All the best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That's {{merge}}. If you want to do it properly, use {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}. But don't worry, this isn't "policy", just best procedure. regards, dab (𒁳) 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Did You Know...
--Woody (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On December 7 2007, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neo-völkisch movements, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Neo-völkisch movements), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Tower of Babel
Not it's me that's getting grief from Til Eugenspiel on talk:Tower of Babel. Care to speak up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadwind (talk • contribs) 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Smile
NHRHS2010 talk 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
strong oppose
No, it's not a violation of WP:BITE "now" -- I'm not changing anything; I'm just giving my interpretation of a longstanding guideline. There is nothing wrong in principle with writing "strong oppose". However, its appropriateness clearly depends on context. In an adminship discussion for an experienced but unsuitable user, a "strong oppose" alongside careful reasons can be valuable. In this case, however, the "strong" added exactly nothing. Its only possible effect is to make the candidate more discouraged at the outcome of the RFA. I have no objection to the rest of the comment. This is of course a minor concern, but I think my reasoning is sound enough, and I am surprised to have met such resistance.
I am not suggesting that anybody is violating policies or guidelines or anything else. I am only making a suggestion that reflects my opinion, just as WP:BITE is a well-reasoned essay that reflects my opinion. — Dan | talk 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk page for templates relating to pagan topics
Hello there dab, I'm aware that at least five different templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area. I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles, and I'd suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. I'm writing to you because I know you have been involved with these articles quite closely. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Of course if you want to have a 1:1 discussion about this, then please do reply here or on my own talk page. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- thanks. I agree some of these templates should probably be merged. dab (𒁳) 07:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, have a look at Indian religions. IAF has reverted your edits. Looks like he is fishing for edit wars. He has not even cared to reply to me here – User_talk:Anishshah19/Discussion_with_IAF.--Anish (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This may be the first Ref Desk Barnstar awarded.
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
"Wouldn't it be great if some wonderful person sat down and synthesised the guts of those answers into a discrete "mini-article"." (Jack of Oz) SaundersW (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
I am honoured. "squameus" though? dab (𒁳) 09:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- An "in" joke, I believe. Rupert Brooke wrote a poem in which he proposed that fish might believe in a god that was "Squameous, omniscient and kind".
"And there, they trust, there swimmeth One
Who swam ere rivers were begun,
Immense, of fishy form and mind,
Squamous, omnipotent, and kind."
It also appears that it is the second, or maybe the third, but still highly deserved. SaundersW (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- excellent :) dab (𒁳) 09:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- :-) But where did they get benevolus from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- "kind"? You mean that doesn't quite fit me? I'll go with omnisciens then, thank you very much. dab (𒁳) 11:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bah, stupid me for not looking it up in Perseus. Thought there was only benevolens. So I, for one, am apparently excluded from omniscient. I guess that leaves me with just squameous then? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- "kind"? You mean that doesn't quite fit me? I'll go with omnisciens then, thank you very much. dab (𒁳) 11:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- :-) But where did they get benevolus from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
origin of religion
I am struggling to understand your actions. At one point you express support for the article origin of religion, then you turn around and say it inappropriate. I believe that you recognize that the article is valid, but you are just unhappy that I am the one who is creating it. These are your comments ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:
- 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
- 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
- 3. the teleological view (revelation)
the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?. Muntuwandi (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- you are right, I need to sit down and devote some time to this. The problem is, as always, not with the validity of the topic itself but with your erratic or idiosyncratic approach. I'll get back to this. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
English words of Celtic origin
Hi. I noticed you'd been editing this area so I had a look myself. I've removed several entries from List of English words of Welsh origin since they didn't check out against the etymologies offered by my copy of the Concise OED. List of English words of Irish origin might be an even bigger problem since it seems heavily reliant on How The Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language Of The Crossroads by Daniel Cassidy, which hasn't had a very good press amongst professional linguists, to say the least (see for example [4] and [5]). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've only done a few housekeeping edits, but these list do seem to have some problems. Already due to scope overlap: List of English words of Celtic origin should be a disambiguation page, between List of English words of Scottish Gaelic origin, List of English words of Irish origin, List of English words of Welsh origin. The difference between Irish words used in the English language and List of English words of Irish origin is also less than clear. dab (𒁳) 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. The whole lot probably needs sorting out. Maybe I'll get back to it after Christmas. I'm no expert on Celtic languages but we should insist on reliable sources - and I notice someone has already questioned Cassidy's reliability on the talk page. Seasons greetings. --Folantin (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
IPA2 template
Hi Dieter,
I agree we have a good IPA article (we've both put a lot of time into it), but it's overwhelming as a pronunciation guide for someone who doesn't even know what the IPA is, which includes a surprising number of Brits. (I'd always thought that was primarily a Usonian problem.) It's actually worse than useless in some ways, as it's intimidating and deters people from using the IPA at all — which may be why so many people advertise their IPA ability on their user pages! I've heard complaints about the IPA being inaccessible for years, and that's been one of the main arguments for using pronunciation respellings instead, which of course are pretty useless for most people whose native language is not English. Since the IPA template links are intended for IPA novices, who often just need to know what [θ] or [eɪ] represent, not their names or histories, I think it's best to link basic pronunciation guides to an IPA chart that's as simple as possible. If they want a more technical treatment, the chart links to the main article. Articles with more than a couple instances of IPA transcription already link to both the chart and the main IPA article through the Notice IPA template. kwami (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I like what you did with the Pronunciation template. kwami (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the problem. But I dislike links to Help: namespace from article bodies. Since {{IPA2}} is primarily used for pronunciation information of non-English words, a link to International Phonetic Alphabet for English isn't an option. Since the lead of the IPA article gives a summary of what it is, and the headnote overtly links to Help:IPA, I don't really see a problem in sending people to IPA. I generally resist the tendency on Wikipedia to assume our readers are morons by default. Of course we cannot assume everyone knows everything, but we can bloody well assume people have the intelligence to click on a blue link if they are interested in finding out more if it is shoved in their face. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Earliest evidence of religion and theories of origin
Dbachmann,
I was wondering what your thoughts are on developing some of the evolutionary materials in two seperate directions. One direction would include all of the early evidence of religious or religious like behavior--particularly in the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods. This would mean expanding (and possibly renaming) Prehistoric religion. The second direction would be creating a page mostly devoid of that type of information that instead focuses on notable theories that account for the origin of religion through evolutionary processes. This would include the work of Boyer, Wolpert, Dawkins, and others. It could also include a brief introduction that explains that while the entry focuses on contemporary theorists (influenced by later developments in evolutionary biology, archeology, etc.) there is in fact a history of such theorizing that goes back to the birth of the social sciences and the study of religion (Tylor, Marrett, etc.). I'm not sure how exactly these two pages would be integrated into the Development of religion entry, but maybe you have suggestions about that. Of course, maybe you don't like this idea at all, but I thought I'd open the conversation up. Despite what another editor likes to suggest I am in fact interested in developing this information through fruitful channels. Thanks for your consideration of this.PelleSmith (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that evolution of religion is eventually going to be an independent article, linked from development of religion per WP:SS. This evolution of religion article can discuss the various theories and their histories at length. The mere timeline of archaeological findings is just the raw material for such theories (and not for our own article per WP:SYN), and would belong in a different article, i.e. prehistoric religion and paleolithic burial (the latter at present a redirect). Note there is Evolution of belief -- since early religion has nothing to do with belief, I am not sure what to do with this, but it clearly needs to be incorporated in the solution. dab (𒁳) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
ok, I collected what we have in origin of religion. This needs a lot of work. dab (𒁳) 17:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas, I don't know I will be online or not. :) ..... so wishing you all in advance..BalanceΩrestored Talk 09:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Dieter,
Meine Quelle für Ansleich war Paul Herrmanns Deutsch Mythologie. Ich habe das Buch jetzt nicht zur Hand, es kann aber sein das dort die latinisierte Form Ansleicus aufgeführt ist und dann nur das Teilwort Leicus als Leich eingedeutscht wurde. Die Form Ansleich ist wie Du selbst schreibst im Prinzip korrekt. Wenn sie nicht von Herrmann stammt, geht sie als Zusammensetzung auf mein Konto ;-). Vielleicht kann man die Artikel Ansleich und Oslac auf der dt. Wiki unter Ansleicus zusammenbringen.
Ich finde es gut, daß Du jetzt mehr für die deutschsprachige Wiki schreiben möchtest. --Grüße Andreas aka Rumpenisse (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
ok, danke: wie gesagt bin ich mit der Rekonstruktion einverstanden. Ich hatte mich v.a. nach dem angeblichen neuheidnischen "Ansleich" erkundigt. Bzgl. de-wiki muss ich leider sagen, dass mir das dortige Klima etwas sehr preussisch vorkommt, verglichen mit en-wiki wird dort mit eisernem Besen für Ordnung gesorgt in einem Ausmass das das "natürliche" Wachstum von Artikeln eher behindert. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Santa edits
I would encourage you to discuss your deletions of the text before performing them, Being BOLD is a less than useful policy to follow in an article that has seen a lot of contention, especially for the sorts of unexplained edits that you made. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would add that I consider you to be a good editor, and didn't think you were being a kook or whatnot. The radar is up concerning large deletions without discussion. I hope you understand. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I am aware I did not discuss my edit, so I have no problem with its being reverted. My edit was intended as purely an implementation of WP:SS, not as disputing the factuality of anything. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
RFPP request concerning yourself
Just noticing you of Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection titled "Abuse admin rights by Dbachmann (talk · contribs)". Happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 03:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I already pointed out on WP:AN/I that the page protection was made by User:Angr, not you as claimed by
Raucous01Rokus01 in 3 places. Bonnes fêtes, Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC) - Indeed, it was my surprise to see you go that far to cut short a discussion. If you are serious on achieving mutual improvements on this subject, including the rightful interpretation and enforcement of WP policy, please play by the rules and have this silly protection revoked. This protection is tainted and turns against your personal credibility, whatever you or your proponents will have to say on it. It is crystal clear no editwar was at hand to justify such a full protect. If you agree as much as you say, I expect this to be resolved as soon as possible. By the way, reverts of sourced information should be addressed by Arbcom and so far the charge of pov pushing is on your side. Rokus01 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- wtf, can you read? I did not protect the bleeding article, if you want to whine about protection, go to User_talk:Angr. Or, while you are here, why not blame me for global warming and international terrorism too? dab (𒁳) 18:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy Message
Sorry, this courtesy slipped my notice. Mathsci, thanks for making me aware.
{{ANI-notice}} [6]
Rokus01 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
um, why "inform" me after I have reacted, and after your "report" had been debunked as bogus? Are you quite there, Rokus, or already immersed in Christmas festivities? Anyway, what are you doing here, I thought you had decided to leave Wikipedia? dab (𒁳) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bogus? I think you are the most interesting arbocase in the Wikipedia history. I can see another incident you caused just a few moments ago, by restoring erroneous and wrongly sourced allegations to Koenraad Elst. Are you still serious or is it you that is working towards a grand finale? How come you thought I'll ever leave Wikipedia alone with you? Maybe it would be interesting to map your friends and some all too obvious administrator aspirants? Rokus01 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you Wikipedia's owner?
With what authority do you cancel other users' contributions? --Esimal (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- do you have anything to say on the civil and patient reasoning I gave when I reverted your undiscussed and summary-less edits? It appears you would do well by beginning by patiently reading WP:5P, and then work your way through WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 21:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Slrubenstein edit war
User:Slrubenstein repeatedely blanks certain parts of Adamic language and Divine language articles. I repeatedly reverted his vandalisms. Please consider guarding both articles against his repeated vandalisms. Please consider blocking him. Wikinger (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- This appears to be a content dispute. I must say I do not find Slrubenstein very collaborative at present, but there is no reason to block him just for doing two reverts. If he doesn't change his tactics, he'll just run into 3RR. Which he, being an experienced editor, knows very well. Relax, this is just Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- For me, blanking of content is vandalism, because prevents article readers from reading many various problem solutions, limiting these readers only to few solutions. Wikinger (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are perfectly valid reasons for removing content. But you are expected to spell them out if challenged. dab (𒁳) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reasons for deleting this content are valid only when content is unsourced. But while nearly all was sourced, Slrubenstein vandalized article content more than three times - here are proofs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, keeping only part of content that was at that time unsourced. Wikinger (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know. I ask you again to take it easy. Or, if you want to push this, you'll need to take it to WP:AN/I. dab (𒁳) 19:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I will try to take it easy, but any Slrubenstein's vandalisms will be reverted quickly by me. I inform you, that seven vandalisms are a bit beyond 3RR. I simply want to keep God's revelation about Adamic language available to readers, besides these non-revelation theories about Adamic language. Slrubenstein made changes again, but didn't touched any sourced content. He additionally had fantastical requests on talk page, but without any reason, thus I reverted that all again. Wikinger (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know. I ask you again to take it easy. Or, if you want to push this, you'll need to take it to WP:AN/I. dab (𒁳) 19:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reasons for deleting this content are valid only when content is unsourced. But while nearly all was sourced, Slrubenstein vandalized article content more than three times - here are proofs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, keeping only part of content that was at that time unsourced. Wikinger (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are perfectly valid reasons for removing content. But you are expected to spell them out if challenged. dab (𒁳) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- For me, blanking of content is vandalism, because prevents article readers from reading many various problem solutions, limiting these readers only to few solutions. Wikinger (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
integral stuff
Hi, recently you have been editing articles related to integral theory. I think that you may have a misunderstanding in regards to the subject. There is a group of political theories, including Integralism, which seem to have their origin in Integralismo Lusitano, a Portuguese political movement. Then there is Integral thought, which comes from Sri Aurobindo and the mystical Swiss phenomenologist Jean Gebser. I think that they are unrelated, although Aurobindo was an early Indian nationalist and Integral humanism, an Indian political theory, comes from the Portuguese movement. I have read Aurobindo and I find it extremely difficult to understand how he could have begun a fascist political movement. Based on this understanding, I will endeavor to distinguish between the two intellectual lineages. Any thuoghts you have on this matter are welcome. — goethean ॐ 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought at first they were unrelated too. Until I came across Integral Traditionalism, which is sort of the missing link between fascism and esotericism. Things start to be less obvious from there. The missing link between Hindu revival esotericism and western fascism and Nazi mysticism is of course Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy. And it is not a coincidence that the Indian religious ultra-rightists embrace "Integral humanism" while the European neo-völkisch ultra-rightists embrace "Integral Traditionalism". dab (𒁳) 10:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
... for tidying up my talk page. I logged in and got the orange bar about new messages, only there weren't any that I could see, until I checked the history.:-) I've since moved the fan mail to my user page. As you're mentioned also, I have to hope that you don't mind. rudra (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
not at all. In the recent bid for my hide, the Hindutva trolls confusingly join forces with the Afro-American PC brigade, and I've had to unearth such niceties myself in an attempt to acquaint one side of this strange alliance with the other. dab (𒁳) 10:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- thanks. I took a look at this latest jamboree. I'm not sure I understand why ArbCom took the case on. The interesting bit is the inclusion of parties based on participation in the RfC. Let's see. rudra (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- my criteria are clear,
- I am open to recall upon the request of six editors in good standing. "good standing" shall mean 500 mainspace edits excluding revert-warring *and* a block log clean of recent blocks for blatant abuse or trolling. (the additional clause I will be prepared to re-apply on the suggestion of a *single* editor whom I recognize as a valuable and sane contributor is entirely at my discretion).
- however, I also feel something should be done here. There is much more bad faith flying around now, even among admins, compared to when I first signed up for AOTR. I might adopt your more bureaucratic approach. To me, AOTR is a straightforward matter of honour and credibility. But I have come to think that it may end up weakening the honourable population and by extension strengthen the bad apple segment. It may be time to make this process apply to everyone or nobody. --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- You absolutely do not need to adopt my approach, or anyone else's if they don't make sense or don't fit your approach!!! Other admins are doing all sorts of things, some are adopting my critiera, some modifying, some restating, some not responding at all. I do suggest though, that if you're willing, that you place a link to your criteria on this table... Thanks. Where people have run into trouble though (review Durova and Mercury) was around "process".... who certified, how long to petition, what happened afterwards, etc. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann. You may remember a quite old addition you made on Helmand River, which says that this river is also called Tarnak. But is this correct? I only know about another Tarnak, which is a tributary of a tributary of the Helmand. Which source told you that the Helmand itself can be called Tarnak? Fransvannes (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- you are right, this is an edit I made on June 30, 2005.[7] Quick googling tells me I was wrong.Thanks for drawing my attention to this, it should be fixed asap. --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have fixed it. I appear to have misread a map. There is now a separate Tarnak River article. dab (𒁳) 14:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for that! Fransvannes (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Please restore
As "misspelling" and "nothing links there" are not criteria for deleting redirects, please restore Evelyne Widmer and Evelyne Widmer-Schlumpf. -- User:Docu
- I honestly see no reason whatsoever to have misspelled redirects to bio articles, and my deletion was on simple grounds of WP:UCS. The name "Evelyne Widmer-Schlumpf" is simply not identical to "Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf" and may theoretically even refer to an unrelated individual. On the same grounds, we could have Evvelyne Widmer-Shulmpf, Evelynn Wydmer-Schlumpf, and hundreds of other variants -- what would be the point of that? But you can recreate the redirects with a click, I suppose. dab (𒁳) 09:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Common sense would have us write just one article on each topic, but check Category:Articles to be merged. One way to avoid this, is to create redirects from common variantes, try, e.g. +"Evelyne Widmer" for a count. Following your suggestion, I recreated the two redirects. -- User:Docu
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Masiliana tablet.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Masiliana tablet.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Question
A happy and fulfilling new year to you and yours.
Bachmann, I have a question. Someone I know proposes to name their newborn son "Skanda," and a group of us were discussing the meaning and etymology of the name. Some surprising, interesting suggestions were made. Question is whether the name is related to some Greek / Persian first names? Is the name "Skanda" known to the Vedas, or does it first appear in India around the time of the Indo-Greeks? When was it first applied in reference to Karttikeya, the youthful God of War? It would be nice if you could answer any of these questions, but it isn't vastly important -- I would not normally impose on your time, but then I figured that you may not mind, considering the time you are compelled to spend in inane disputes anyway :) Also, please see this and correct it if necessary. Regards, ImpuMozhi (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- and a happy new year to you. Skanda hasn't got much of an etymology. It means "the leaper" or "the squirter" or something similar. It isn't originally a personal name so much as an epithet. The Rigveda (1.172.3) has trna-skanda for "grasshopper". There is a Latin cognate, scando "to climb"[8], which survives in ascend and descend etc. dab (𒁳) 12:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you check this old posting of yours on WT:AN?
Hello Dbachmann. Staring for several minutes at the first entry on WT:AN, some old message which has been there since July, I realized that without a signature, MiszaBot will never archive it. I found that it is evidently your note, so I wonder if you could edit WT:AN to add your signature there? I put your name on it via the 'unsigned' template, but that is not enough for the bot. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Geological time/civilization template reform
You might want to read my comments at Template talk:Pleistocene regarding {{Pleistocene}}, {{Upper Paleolithic}}, and {{Holocene}}. --coldacid (Talk|Contrib) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Character article
In response to your comments on my Talk page: first of all, you are aware that the article I redirected was Character (word) and not Character (sign), I presume, since when I look at Character (sign) I can see that you were the one who originally moved the page. I don't point this out merely to quibble, but because the very name of the article, in addition to the article itself, reinforced my impression that it was a page about the word and its different meanings and thus a malformed disambiguation page adorned with a series of dictionary definitions. To be honest, I'm still not sure what you're talking about when you say "this was a major topic in 17th to 18th century philosophy" and "early modern intellectual history", because the page refers to about ten different meanings and links to further information on most of them (hence, a dab page). Are you saying that 17th to 18th century philosophers spent a lot of time discussing the many different definitions of "character"?
I'm also unsure why you didn't acknowledge the December 23 edit which proposed merging and redirecting the article to the disambiguation page, offering essentially the same reasoning that I used when I actually performed the action. Propaniac (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how the disambiguation page was "malformed". I admit the coverage of the 17th-18th century discussion is still very meagre. I do not propose that Character (sign) should be separate from Character (word), and I am open to have the article reside at either of these titles. I did not acknowledge your 23 December edit because I am not glued to the screen, did some things besides Wikipedia over the holiday season, and furthermore have some 6,000 items on my watchlist so that I'll necessarily miss some things if I'm away from Wikipedia for more than half a day. No harm was done, after all. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually wasn't the one who made the December 23 edit; it simply seemed odd that you would see my own edit yesterday and jump on it immediately while having ignored the previous one which invited discussion on the issue. But I do understand that you could have missed it.
After reviewing the article and your comments again, I think I finally understand that your intent is to focus on the meaning described under "Semiotics and epistemology", and that your discussion of other meanings is intended to provide background on the etymology of the word as it relates to that meaning. If I'm correct, then I refer to WP:DICT, which states that detailed etymology generally belongs in Wiktionary, while a Wikipedia article should focus on discussing an actual subject. I don't think that anyone would object if you revised Character (word) so that it focused on a single topic, distinct from what is already covered by other existing articles.
If, on the other hand, it is actually intended to focus on all meanings of "character", and thus serve the purpose of a disambiguation page, it would be "malformed" because it does not follow any of the guidelines of the manual of style for disambiguation pages. The page at Character does follow these guidelines. Propaniac (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I happened to be online during your edit and not during the other. No worries: it's a wiki, it's never too late to revert or reconsider.
- MOS:DP doesn't say a disambiguation page needs h2 sections. It says it can have them. I happen to deprecate ToCs on dab pages in almost all cases. The arrangement of the disambiguation page is a question entirely separate from how to proceed with the Character (word) article. A dab page merely serves as a navigation aid (but it still needs to be arranged in a way that makes sense). Character (word) is the article on the word or notion of "Character", which will not include a link to Character (1997 film), but which will explain (not: disambiguate) the relation of "character" as applied to a written symbol, and "character" as applied to human traits. dab (𒁳) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, it isn't too late. Which is why you needn't act so shocked and outraged the next time someone performs an edit that was suggested nearly two weeks prior and had received no objection.
- I am not saying that the format of the Character dab page has anything to do with the viability of the Character (word) article. I am not saying that Character (word) needs section headers or whatever in the world you're talking about. I am saying that as it is currently written, the Character (word) article appears to serve the same purpose as the disambiguation page. If you don't intend it to do that, then rewrite the Character (word) article so that its purpose is clear. I am not the only person who looks at it and sees a screwed-up attempt at a disambiguation page. And repeatedly saying, "Oh, someday some white knight will come along and make Character (word) a brilliant and informative article with a completely obvious purpose!!" is completely meaningless. It should not take multiple Talk page discussions for someone to identify the point of an article. And I'll take it to WP:AFD if you refuse to improve it.
- As for your comments here, on my Talk page, and on the Talk page of Character about disambiguation pages (please note that I am not talking about Character (word) in this paragraph): You're free to think that disambiguation pages should include lengthy descriptions of how meanings are related. Wikipedia policy does not. Wikipedia policy is that disambiguation pages are designed to help the reader reach his or her intended article as easily as possible. That's done by reducing clutter, making organization intuitive, and providing guidance when necessary. And it is completely insulting to describe those efforts as "random re-ordering."
well, I apologize if I acted shocked, or if you were insulted by me. As for the rest, I hear you, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on certain points. It will just be important to pinpoint exactly what it is we disagree on. Thus, I have never said I wanted "lengthy descriptions" in dab pages, as you seem to have understood. Which is precisely why Character (word) cannot be a disambiguation page: it contains "lengthy descriptions" (a.k.a. article prose). I also agree that dab pages serve to "help the reader reach his or her intended article as easily as possible", where possible: this contains the tacit assumption that the reader does have a clear topic in mind, and that this topic corresponds with how articles are arranged on Wikipedia. In complicated cases, this need not necessarily be the case. There can be disputes or misconceptions regarding whether some thing constitutes one single or two or more separate topics, and consequently whether there should be a single main article, or just a disambiguation page.
I do not "refuse to improve" it, or any other article. Which isn't the same as jumping to the job just because you asked for it either. You are, of course, free to afd the article (which I would consider WP:POINT), to slap it with an {{expand}} or any maintenance tag of your preference, or, come to think of it, to leave it alone. dab (𒁳) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't delete it, and I can't undelete it, because I'm not an admin on Commons. I tagged it in good faith, and didn't mean to "ambush" you. However, it's okay, because it can be undeleted. I've started a section at Commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:Iron_Age_Italy.png; you may wish to comment. Sorry for the trouble. Superm401 - Talk 15:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Allegations
If you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet you are sadly mistaken. I simply want to build an encyclopaedia, defined by Wikipedia as "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". And I think it's perfectly fine to express personal disgust at one who seems to trample on users of differing opinions. I do not intend to revert war with you, as I believe the OIT article is not salvageable after the degradation and decomposition users such as yourself have subjected it to for who knows how long. And btw, you have a point of view (that the OIT is unscholarly rubbish) and you never hesitate before pushing it in other people's faces whether they like it or not, so don't delude yourself as not being a POV pusher. Darrowen (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Hi dab! I have replied to you on the talk page of the article. I am in no mood of breaking my break :) So, no need for reply. Thanks and take care.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hallo!
I saw that you have changed [ the [:Image:Knowledge German EU map.png]]. and added Switzerland. From where did you get the data for Switzerland? Are you sure that more than 50% know German in the French and Italian Speaking parts. Please cite your sources! Aaker (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Indian religions
Hi, please refer to the ongoing debate on the discussion pages of Indian religions and edit warring by IAF. The debate has unfortunately degenerated into irrelevant stuff and has become a colossus waste of time. IAF has debased the debate into various wild claims like Jainism is a cult, Parsva is a vedic god, amongst other wild claims. While I am trying to keep the article as Neutral as possible by providing scholarly reference that Sramanas and vedics existed side by side, he is not ready for any consensus or for that matter, accommodate alternative views. I require your assistance. Is there any way to stop this silly arguments and make this article NPOV more if possible. I want to get away from this edit warring and make more positive contributions. Thanks. --Anish (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- IAF is being disruptive. You should ask some administrator to warn and if necessary block him. I prefer not to become active as an admin in India related topics myself, because there are a half dozen zealots just waiting for me to make a mistake and then walk around Wikipedia with my head on a pike. Please try WP:AN/I. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I can understand your concerns !! --Anish (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Jose.chacko has reverted the changes made by Manish Modi on the pages of IR. Considering the edit warring and passions generated, it is surprising that a new user who has only two contribs, should revert the changes. It seems to be a sock puppet account, possibly of IAF. I dont know. Can you please check out. The Sock may force either me or Manish Modi into edit war so that he can ask us also to be banned. This is just one possibility. I request you to semi-protect this page until a consensus is reached to prevent socks from editing this article.--Anish (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A requested checkuser came back negative for IAF, but it is an obvious sock account created for disruption/edit warring. As such, I have indefinitely blocked the account. Vassyana (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Old Nationalism Talk
Hi there! I happened upon a discussion on the "ethnic nationalism" page and found your quote from a couple of years ago:
"ethnic nationalism" is just a tautology. natio is the very *translation* of ethnos. It is pointless to keep this separate from nationalism. Of course there can be both Egyptian and Pan-Arabic nationalism. This simply means that some envisage "Egyptians" as an ethnicity, while others envisage "Arabs" (Arabic speakers) as an ethnicity. You cannot be a nationalist of anything unless you postulate the precence of an ethnicity. You could even say that nationalism constructs an ethnicity. That's for ethnicity or ethnogenesis to explore, the fact remains that this title is tautological.
I don't hang around here much, but it's wonderful to see such a precise argument. It bothers me to no end when people (in real life, not that I've seen on WP) talk of so-called "civic nationalism" in contrast with "ethnic nationalism." In my view, this simply obscures the definition of nationalism. Call it patriotism if you must but to me "civic nationalism" is an oxymoron. Because of all of this, your average person is likely to consider patriotism and nationalism the same thing, which is simply appalling. I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated reading a quote like yours. All the best. JoelHowe (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- why thank you. I would indeed say that patriotism, unless it is paired with too much stupidity, arrogance or chauvinism, is in fact a virtue, while nationalism is almost infallibly a vice. On Wikipedia, I have had ample opportunity to study the confused mental state into which nationalism will plunge an otherwise intelligent person. But it must be said, also from on-wiki experience, that on average, nationalists will not be very intelligent. Intelligent nationalists exist, but they constantly need to lie to themselves, which is a psychological strain that will only be maintained under strong motivation. The less intelligent you are, the easier you will find it to be a nationalist, because inconsistencies will not bother you so much. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this your work? I am asking for clarification if it is.
"Store consciousness accumulates all potential energy for the aggregate of the 'bodymind' (Sanskrit: namarupa), the physical and mental manifestation of one's existence, and supplies the substance to all existences (?)."
- does the ? = dharmas ("phenomena") in the aforecited?
- Yours in pansentience (NB: Pansentience being the Shentong dṛṣṭi.)
- B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- use the history tab to figure out who wrote what. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. dab (𒁳) 08:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am pandazzled by this polyrama of transcient metaverbiage. rudra (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- use the history tab to figure out who wrote what. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. dab (𒁳) 08:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hallo. Is there any reason wht Sardinia is blank? If so, could you please account for it in the text, or correct the map? You make look Sardinia as devoid of inhabitants, which is not true. Thank you. --G.dallorto (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sardinia had Phoenician colonies at the time, but apart from that, I am afraid I have no idea what language was spoken by its inhabitants. dab (𒁳) 15:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ishtar Gate "damage attributed to coalition forces"
Hello dab, I saw that you have written on the wikipedia entry to babylon and the ishtar gates that they have sustained damage from coalition forces. Please know that this is not true. I can send you pictures of the ruins and the ishtar gates to assure you that there is no damage to them. Frequently, media organizations distort the truth and this is indeed a case. The Coalition forces have a hard enough task in front of them without disparaging and untrue remarks regarding our actions and morality. Whether you agree with the invasion or not, the history reported should be accurate. please email me at doc_silvers@yahoo.com and I can send you several photos. I also am friends with an Iraqi who is from Babil Province and he can certainly attest to the truth.Doc silvers (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think there must be some misunderstanding: while there was significant damage reported to the Babylon site, the Ishtar Gate has been in Berlin, with parts scattered over other museums, since its excavation. It was thus impossible for the forces in Iraq to do any damage to the gate. What they may or may not have damaged is a recent replica of the gate serving as an entrance to the on-site museum, which would be rather without consequence, since another replica can be made at any time. What we do have are reports on significant damage done to the archaeological record, as reported by the Guardian, BBC, The Boston Globe, USA Today and Fox News in January 2005. This is indeed sad, and if the US Army cared about not having disparaging remarks made about their handling of archaeological sites, they should perhaps not have built their bloody landing pad squat on the site of historical Babylon, but perhaps a few hundred yards further off. In 2006, an apology was offered (BBC). A more recent report stresses that the looting is the more severe problem than the damage caused by the military. This should perhaps be pointed out in all fairness, but it is still a rather cheap excuse for the damage you did to just point to others who did even worse... dab (𒁳) 12:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source?
Nice example that one should read Wikipedia articles critically, and not rely on Wikipedia alone :-) Lupo 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Neo-Pagans has been superseded
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/35/Information_icon.svg/62px-Information_icon.svg.png)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Neo-Pagans, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Neo-Pagans has been superseded by a similar category (typos in name, expanding abbreviations, fixing capitalisation, renaming to comply with the "by country" format and conversions from singular to plural or vice versa). (CSD C2).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Neo-Pagans, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Russ (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Restored, and made to point to Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Which the nominator could have found out easily by looking at Dab's contributions. Lupo 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sit shiva over the Arbcom
@dab, Thus the farce came to an end. Most of those Arbcommies who sat over the case (thanks to their PR skill alone) won't even bother to read an edit of yours/ won't understand a thing if they bothered at all. None of those lazybones checked a single instance of the falsities put together by that pre-teen. Your enemies might know you better. You still care for Wikipedia? That was a bad dab. I told you earlier about this and you and Fowler answered citing the motivation the trolls offered. Well, I for one have tremendously benefited from your contributions. Watching you made me contribute my mite sometimes under various aliases. Wikipedia doesn't appreciate your contributions. Has anybody reacted to the heinous venom spitting Fowler suffered from a Kannadiga troll[9], [10] whom you awarded with a barnstar earlier? Are you going to surrender your dignity at the feet of these idiots? The elitist eggheads you scorned might be laughing up their sleeves now. Sachivan (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- come on, we always knew there are all sorts on Wikipedia. There are pathetic jerks and brilliant people. Some of the jerks even managed to be made admin, what else is new, we have long heard the mantra, RfA is broken. This isn't all that bad, since even as an admin, your jerks can do only very limited damage. Now the arbcom can do appreciable damage if they set their mind to it, but then they are re-elected every year, and if they foul up so royally that it is impossible not to notice, they'll just be replaced. Wikipedia abides. I may have to give up Wikipedia sooner or later, not in frustration but simply because it eats too much of my time: I am not irreplacable here. dab (𒁳) 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to add the details on what various important epics (Bible, Gita, Veda, Quran) has to say about this topic. Do you find that correct?BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- definitely, but you need a secondary source in order to comply with WP:SYN. This means, you need to find somebody who has written about his views on the role of compromise in these epics, you should avoid just citing the epics directly. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- BRIAN YEAGER says "The Bible speaks of right and wrong, not in the middle."
SRC: http://www.christianlibrary.org/authors/Brian_Yeager/denominationalism/compromise.htm
I did not find any book as such, I did try to search the same. It's at least not at google books or amazon... If you can access the details it will be great. BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- http://www.christianlibrary.org/authors/Brian_Yeager/Brian_Yeager.htm, Some information about the author.BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Road Protests - Scope?
should this be limited to Road Protests in the UK and possibly Ireland since the USA already has a good article on their history? I propose a name change to 'Road Protests UK and Ireland'PeterIto (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- We already have Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom -- I think it might be best to keep road protest in the list format we currently have (but it obviously should be expanded). We may need to slap it with a {{globalize}} tag, too. The US Freeway and expressway revolts article apparently concerns the 1960s to 1970s exclusively. dab (𒁳) 13:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Dbachmann is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions. Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians are placed on article probation. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- the finding of "fact" to the effect that
- Dbachmann ... has misused his administrative tools by protecting pages on which he was involved in content disputes"
- points to the "evidence" provided by "Sir Nicholas". That evidence is bogus. While I accept the "reminder" to "avoid using administrative tools in editorial disputes", and indeed fully endorse the concept, I cannot accept the finding of "fact" for the simple reason that it is not factual, and I do not subscribe to the view that the arbcom can create facts by fiat. If this means I need to resign my adminship let me know. If I had indeed abused my admin tools in the way described by the arbcom (which I have not), I would be the first to agree that I would need to be de-adminned immediately. I am, incidentially, an administrator open to recall: If the community feels I am damaging the project, I'll just walk away, no hard feelings. dab (𒁳) 20:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Request_for_clarification_on_semi-protection. I did not bother to point out the obvious fact that the "evidence" was bogus because I expected the arbcom would review the evidence before endorsing it. I was apparently mistaken. They seem to assume that "evidence" that isn't commented upon may be taken at face value. I cannot be expected to take the time to refute bogus evidence just because people feel like presenting it. If evidence is bogus, it is the arbcom's task to recognize it as such. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
My view here is that the arbitration case closed too quickly. When it became clear that the bans on the disruptive editors (as indicated by the findings of fact) were not going to pass, some lesser remedies should have been proposed and voted on. These are the worst sort of results, where one "side" might (incorrectly) take encouragement from the situation (ie. lack of remedies involving them) and might now defy dab on similar articles. dab, if I may, I would advise you to be a role model if this happens, and to politely discuss things until it becomes clearer who are the editors who are not helping here. Arbitration enforcement should help if there is further disruption at the articles on probation: "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from the article and its talk page by any uninvolved administrator. Any editor that continues to edit in violation of such a ban may be blocked as specified in the enforcement ruling below." So by all means keep pointing out disruption - just don't get so involved. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That's just DeeceeVoice, right? (Unlikely that Bakasuprman would ever get involved in those two articles, even uncontentiously.)I'm not seeing Arb Enf helping with respect to any other editor anywhere else. Never mind the anon IP trolls now entitled to manufacture "substantive" "content disputes" out of thin air (see the link to "substantive content edit" and note the edit summary). rudra (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)- My bad, lost the point there. Any editor on just those two articles. But dab could just stay away from those two articles -- is there any particular call for him specifically to remain involved there? -- and unless someone else monitors them, it's basically status quo ante. rudra (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I always do politely discuss until it becomes painfully clear who is not helping matters. Painfully clear to anyone who reviews the case for ten minutes anyway. Of course the arbcom could not even be bothered to identify individual cases, they just took random unsorted edits out of context as idly harvested from my log by "Sir Nicholas", content to label it "evidence", without as much as pointing out what they were supposed to be evidence of. I am happy to let others monitor the Afrocentrist mess -- I have no particular beef there, and my entire involvement was just a straightforward cleanup attempt: I basically tried to put the article under "article probation" unilaterally. The Afrocentrists jumped at my throat at that, and the upshot is that the arbcom has now put the article under probation, so provided anybody bothers to enforce that, I really got what I wanted. dab (𒁳) 07:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Rokus chimes in
I really don't want to hurt your feelings, and nobody is going to push your recall just like this, but did you ever try to listen? Well, silly question I guess... Rokus01 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, he tries to listen and succeeds. He is trying to come to terms with arbcom's supposed finding of fact other editors have found questionable as well. He is seeking feedback on this, and, when he brought up the issue, he got replies by people who listened and by people who didn't listen. He's taken a lot of heat and remained remarkably calm, focusing on writing articles instead. He's a formidable editor and would leave a gap if he left. He's struggling with perceived unfairness (in the discursive sense), and, quite frankly, I don't think your rhetorical question is going to help him improve his listening. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- In summary, you say he tries to listen and won't improve his listening. While he is away editing calmly we have to read his soapboxing, using all the arguments against others that others demonstrated against him. To perceive unfairness could be a result of bad listening and a source of new incitement. How come, it is not just all about anon trolls. There is nothing rhetoric in wondering how much wisdom has been acquired, or how long it will take to achieve. Rokus01 (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
you have contributed to the "evidence" Rokus, and I suggest you leave it at that. Yours was even a worse case of blatant bad faith than that of "Sir Nicholas". I won't comment on it because the arbcom ignored it. My comment isn't on random pathetic attempts of filibustering, that's simply not worth my time. To anyone unfamiliar with Rokus01: he is spending time trying to smear me not because he cares about Wikipedia. He is simply feeling vindictive because I prevented him spreading his crackpot views of Dutch crypto-nationalism, which basically holds that the Dutch people are descended from Neanderthals, and are hence a racially superior breed, the original Aryans and the wellspring of all human civilization. I am not sure why such editors are allowed on Wikipedia for any drawn out period of time, and why I should be the only person to be standing between them and our articles. Oh, and then be reprimanded by our right honourable arbcom for my pains. Doesn't anyone of our IRC wiki-moguls review actual content any more? dab (𒁳) 07:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- (Reply to Rokus) No, that is not what I said in summary. All sorts of things can factor into one's perception, and the entire arbcom process confirmed this in multiple ways. I disagree, your question was nothing if not rhetorical, and "Well, silly question I guess..." certainly didn't make it look like you were actually expecting an answer about "how much wisdom has been acquired, or how long it will take to achieve." Anyway, I don't wish to clutter up dbachmann's talk page any further, and won't be posting in this thread anymore. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I did listen, very closely, to the arbcom. Because I consider this a gremium to be respected in principle. Because I did pay attention, I did note that the arbcom did not appear to make any sense. They talked of "protection" and "evidence", while there was not in fact any such evidence, just a random collection of diffs without apparent relation to what they alleged. Because I did listen, and because I found that the arbcom did not make sense, I asked for clarification. If had not "listened", I'd just have mumbled "bugger that" and carried on with whatever I was doing. dab (𒁳) 09:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- To anyone unfamiliar with Rokus01: he is spending time trying to smear me not because he cares about Wikipedia. He is simply feeling vindictive because I prevented him spreading his crackpot views of Dutch crypto-nationalism, which basically holds that the Dutch people are descended from Neanderthals, and are hence a racially superior breed, the original Aryans and the wellspring of all human civilization.
- This continued display of unwarranted personal attacks show you don't mind Wikipedia at all, not for the policies, not for the community and not for arbcom. You reject the most basic foundation of Wikipedia, that it should be a shared project between multiple editors - that might all have a different perspective. You don't even notice your nutshell assessment of Wikipedia "being the collaboration of dissenting editors" just reflects your troubled mind, utterly unable to make the distinction between honest editors and fascists. Why you should care anyway, the only one you ever intended to take serious is yourself. Arbcom neatly defined your POV pushing, your OR and your many other abuses. Instead of listening, keeping a low profile for a while and take heart you defy the concept of reasonable and polite persons. You act like an outsiders by acquiring the foul language first, and subsequently use it indiscriminated against all your adversaries - even when they take pains in cleaning your blunt, amateur generalizations and other mess. You defile people by calling them names they don't deserve, engage in countless editwars, react aggressively when running out of arguments, or just walk away from the table for coming back later and make your predefined reverts anyway, and then even dare to call other people trolls! Go on, make clear to everybody there is no cure for your trolling behaviour. Not at Wikipedia, anyway. Whatever your possible ambitions to become the King of Trolls himself, all future left for you might be the carreer of an anon troll. Rokus01 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Dbachmann. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
see
this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachivan (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
if you want to tell me something, do it here, not on a stale arbitration case, and use your proper account, not a sock. dab (𒁳) 19:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can he? I didn't know that indef-blocked accounts could post to Talk pages (other than their own(?)). rudra (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Post
You should have some mail (not that it's urgent). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. --Kjoonlee 13:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did. Until your behaviour deteriorated into the erratically incoherent. If your faith is indeed good, make a show of it and discuss your concerns like a civilized Wikipedian. dab (𒁳) 13:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Asdfg12345 is edit warring on this article, and has gone well over the 3 revert rule. Please take a look if you get time. Sorry to bother you with this but the article is on probation & I can't seem to find any of the relevant admins(who are currently active) to deal with it. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. See [11]. I strongly discourage taking any action at this moment. It would definitely not help. Herunar (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just saw this. I didn't realise I had exceeded 3RR. This would be a first for me. If it's a 'wrap on the knuckles' I don't mind being banned for 24hrs; I've broken the rules, after all. This is an unfortunate situation that has arisen. Right now probably best to go through the changes on the talk page and discuss them one by one. In 24hrs I would join in.--Asdfg12345 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK I thought this might happen. You agree to play nice after aggressively editing an article. I couldn't care less about a block but I was hoping some kind of warning would get through to you. But you seem sincere now so we'll see how it goes. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Both of you are missing the point here. I don't give a shit about the edit wars on the article and whether or not who got the "last edit". The problem is with the user's behavior and a 3RR ban or a warning for breaking a simple rule that anyone could break condescends this problem. Herunar (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
sure. but this is my talkpage. 3RRvio reports go to WP:AN/3RR. thanks, dab (𒁳) 12:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Guten Tag..
There is the pic of the Sorb girls, they show a high frequency of R1a1 type in Europe, In Central Asia the highest frequencies are found in Tajikistan which is also the highest anywhere detected so dont worry about the pic of Tajik girl. You also deleted the flashmap from a scholar from your own country where it shows where the gene, the PIE languages, its diversion might have originated in context to the Kurgan culture as well as it shows preexisting cultures in Eurasia, why? you should put it back it seems to me that it might be educational to those studying these fields. And you also dissed Wikingers Adamic Proto-Indo-European theory. Thanx, Take care, and keep it schon Cyrus111 (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for intelligent input
Dear Dab, please could you cast a glance over the following. I'm becoming tired of dealing with these types of edits and so-called discussions. If I'm being too harsh in your opinion please let me know:
- Talk:Hinduism#New_Conversion_Section_Proposal - debate largely with User:Desione.
- Vaishnavism - debate with B9_hummingbird_hovering.
Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- not to put too fine a point on it, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. Without naming any names, "anyone" includes the world's idiots. Wikipedia policy is intended to minimize the impact of these people, but Wikipedia's armchair admins, mediators and arbitrators do their best to nullify WP:UCS and basically prefer the position that an edit by an idiot is just as good as an edit by an expert, because this is the only way of "managing" Wikipedia without being forced to actually waste any effort on complex thought processes. dab (𒁳) 12:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge of Hispanophone with Hispanic Culture
Hello Dbachmann! You proposed that Hispanophone should be merged with Hispanic culture. I desagree - the reason being Hispanic Culture is a redirect to just Hispanic (but not Talk:Hispanic culture though!). Is this what you had in mind - for Hispanophone to be merged with Hispanic? Please clarify. Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- ah, sorry, I made Hispanic culture a redirect to Hispanic. That was after I added the merge template to Hispanophone. My bad. dab (𒁳) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
--Archtransit (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposal: Change titles for two articles: Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam
Hi dab, this is just to let you know of the above proposal (at the TownPump I believe), just now. Also, I'm busy with other things in my life, so please don't expect me to even check WP for any answer in the foreseeable future. I hope someone will just do it. But I would eventually do it myself, if either you or JFW Jfdwolff (or anyone else) encourages me. For7thGen (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
To anyone unfamiliar with Rokus01: he is spending time trying to smear me not because he cares about Wikipedia. He is simply feeling vindictive because I prevented him spreading his crackpot views of Dutch crypto-nationalism, which basically holds that the Dutch people are descended from Neanderthals, and are hence a racially superior breed, the original Aryans and the wellspring of all human civilization.
The ANI I raised on this was contested like this:
- "I see Dbachmann's statement that you have quoted as something that could be true, and should be seen in the context of Dbachmann needing to make clear his views on the editors he finds himself dealing with. Rather than complain about any personal attack, why not consider trying to refute his claims? First, ask him to provide diffs to back up his claims, and then take matters from there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)"
To you the kind request to supply the requested diffs to back up your claims and take things from there:
- crackpot views (most of all it has been me correcting you)
- Dutch crypto-nationalism (what is this?)
- especially Dutch people descending from Neanderthals (i.e. anything more than you would)
- descendents of Neanderthals being of a superior race
- to have mentioned or meant the word superior at all to forward a race
- me claiming any relation with Aryans
- the Netherlands being the wellspring of all human civilization (only having said that the supposed place of origin of the pivotal Bell Beaker and Frankish cultures might have been one of the most underestimated centres of people and cultures in the "cradles" article)
Thanks. Rokus01 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am not interested in this stuff. It was Rokus who filed a complaint about me on AN/I, for no reason other than general vindictive bitchiness. I did not go forum-shopping with my complaints about Rokus, and consequently am under no obligation to wikilawyer about this. I could invest two days' work dragging Rokus to the arbcom oracle, and after two months of painful process end up with a mild admonishment directed at the world at large to be nice and respect policy. That's not worth my time. Further debate with Rokus is not worth my time. I request Rokus to stay off my talkpage and restrict our interaction to the topically barely necessary on article talkpages. Rokus' contribution are open to anyone interested in reviewing them. dab (𒁳) 08:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And I am not interested in your continuouos unwarranted sneering. What about this one at [12]: "(Cyrus') contributions do not violate NOR as Rokus alleges, but you need to pay attention to WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE (as, of course, does Rokus. this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black)."?
For convenience I'll ignore the fact that WP:SYNTH is only part of NOR politics. Also I'll ignore the fact that it escaped your notice that Cyrus use of sources was completely unwarranted. And also I will not mention your moderate attitude towards Cyrus bias on "original Aryans", in his case completely warranted and still you don't grab this chance to slap his face for being a credible soldier against fascism and all other evils alike.
Dbachmann, you'll have to make clear to me why you think your sneering is justified. Just to engage in WP:NPA for the fun of it does not suit anybody. So again: To you the kind request to supply the requested diffs to back up your claims and take things from there:
- Me engaging in WP:SYNTH (Putting material together in a way other than for compiling encyclopedic information around a central theme covered by a particular article)
- Me engaging in WP:UNDUE (Compiling information that does not fit a central theme covered by a particular article)
Thanks again, Rokus01 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
RCP by User:HisSpaceResearch
h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I created these for a reason. They all have potential for a full article. They are needed in the context of cleanup work on British history articles I am doing. If you don't like their being dab pages, turn them into {{R with possibilities}}. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but you shouldn't remove speedy tags from articles you've created yourself. That is quite strictly against policy - and for articles that are essentially empty it's in my view not a good idea.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Medieval Wales.
Do you plan to expand that? · AndonicO Hail! 12:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- no - there are three articles already, and it is sufficient to disambiguate between them. Compare Medieval Scotland: this used to be a redirect to Scotland in the High Middle Ages. I argue that disambiguation between EMA, HMA and LMA is more proper than just redirecting "Medieval" to HMA. Also compare Medieval England: this is a redirect to Medieval Britain. There is room for arguing whether Medieval Wales and Medieval Scotland should do the same, but considering which articles we currently have (and which ones we do not), I consider the present solution optimal. dab (𒁳) 12:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you wish to contribute in this matter.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maps created by User:Talessman Flamarande (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Double redirects
When you moved Britain in the Middle Ages to Great Britain in the Middle Ages, it looks like you created several double redirects and didn't fix them. Anyway, I cleaned them up. Just a friendly reminder that it is good to check when you move things.... LeSnail (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. But note that there are bots for this: if you hadn't done it, they would have fixed everything in a day or two. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spearhead of kovel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Spearhead of kovel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- this bot is getting on my nerves. The image contains a perfectly valid fair use rationale. If it isn't valid for some reason, I'd like to see the perl script capable of making the call. dab (𒁳) 07:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Assyrian naming dispute, talk page
Is screwed up and needs to be fixed. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
PRODs
{{prodnote}}
- The Hobbitons Fram (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tim Maroney BJBot (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/40px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Eu-, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=dys-. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
RFCU
There may be some similarities in Special:Contributions/Hkelkar and Special:Contributions/Ghanadar_galpa. A RFCU might be necessary here. I am not well-versed in checkuser requests. I think an experienced editor can help in this case. Can you please help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
oh, Hkelkar is one of Wikipedia's most tenacious sock artists. We tend to block them as they come in, without too much protocol distinguishing meat from sock. If it quacks like Hkelkar, chances are good indeed that it also is Hkelkar. dab (𒁳) 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dbachmen
I was looking at the user pages of some people that were debating with me, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Fixed_POV_edit I'm an American and I help out with things dealing with the Turkish Wikiproject. However, I was wondering if the people arguing with me were just people of neutral opinions. I found out 2 of them are unknown new wikipedians with one that has no userpage but a massive talk page of Armenian POV discussions. One of them was Meowy, and is apparently Armenian as well. And steelmate who is simply a nationalist Armenian. They all seem to disagree with me on factual information. They have added POV edits like "Most Western historians agree with genocide" but this is simply speculation and not proven or verifiable statement. They have added plenty of other things as well like "Armenian diaspora was created as a result of genocide", but there is no proof of this either or citation. So I was wondering since you seem to have dealt with people like Meowy in the past, if you can advise me or help me out on this issue? It is not like I'm asking to delete massive parts of an article, but just certain POVs. Perhaps we can add a Neutrality disputed template? Anyway, thanks for your time, I am not that old a wikipedian, so I don't know how to do everything, I can't even figure out how to make colored names :P. Arsenic99 (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have mostly shunned away from the Armenian genocide topic so far, but I will look into it. It is true that we get a lot of confused teenage Armenian nationalist expatriates here, but they mostly tend to harp on the "ancient origins of Armenians" in the Early Bronze Age (which is nonsense), and not so much on the Armenian genocide (which is a serious topic). dab (𒁳) 06:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oromoyo fanatics in full action
Hello Dab, the Oromoyo fanatics are now raging onto articles, POV-pushing with the genius Megalommatis as their "source" and revert-warring. I think it's time for you to get acquainted with some of them. They're quite lovely and in no way unreliable, they're also very neutral, and they make Benne and me together seem very moderate. Here you go:
Just to list a few examples. You should also watch out for User:Pieter Kuiper, by the way, who has decided to take their side and running around and deleting content without justification. Pay attention to that he has been accused of being a sophisticated troll. User:VegardNorman should be kept an eye on. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Megalommatis isn't a "source": you and I agree on this. Apart from that, it may be a good thing that povs are being pushed from two sides in this now: this tends to lead to highly double-checked, extremely balanced articles. dab (𒁳) 06:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's true to some extent. But if you think they will present an objective case, then you are wrong. It's so much original research that it simply can't be taken seriously. And look, I'm not POV pushing. I am simply presenting our history with academic sources (check out the recent additions in the Assyrian naming dispute article). You may doubt all you like that we are Assyrians, but I am simply standing up for the truth of the history of my people, whereas these guys literally worship Mor Afrem (because he allegedly stated that he was an Aramaean) and the Syriac Orthodox Church. They don't take into account that Mor Afrem wasn't omniscient and that he may well have been motivated by the old testament and its negative description of the ancient Assyrians. If you think I've been POV-pushing then you haven't seen anything yet. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you going to do something about the Syriacs "article" by the way? It's been locked and the admin who locked it is ignoring any discussion and the entire article is POV pushing original research. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- what are you expecting me to do? The article is protected. I cannot just unprotect it like that. At this stage, debate is required, at least until it becomes clear that one side is not capable of debate (at which time sanctions will be taken against the user, not the article). dab (𒁳) 13:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the Assyrian people article needs some maintenance right now because they keep reinserting Megalommatis as source and an old indopedia link of Aramaeans. A few months ago you were seriously engaged in this topic and gave me a lot of "heat" for including links and sources. I think they should face the same treatment, since their sources are in no way serious, don't comply with WP:RS and in no way academic. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- what are you expecting me to do? The article is protected. I cannot just unprotect it like that. At this stage, debate is required, at least until it becomes clear that one side is not capable of debate (at which time sanctions will be taken against the user, not the article). dab (𒁳) 13:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you going to do something about the Syriacs "article" by the way? It's been locked and the admin who locked it is ignoring any discussion and the entire article is POV pushing original research. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's true to some extent. But if you think they will present an objective case, then you are wrong. It's so much original research that it simply can't be taken seriously. And look, I'm not POV pushing. I am simply presenting our history with academic sources (check out the recent additions in the Assyrian naming dispute article). You may doubt all you like that we are Assyrians, but I am simply standing up for the truth of the history of my people, whereas these guys literally worship Mor Afrem (because he allegedly stated that he was an Aramaean) and the Syriac Orthodox Church. They don't take into account that Mor Afrem wasn't omniscient and that he may well have been motivated by the old testament and its negative description of the ancient Assyrians. If you think I've been POV-pushing then you haven't seen anything yet. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have already said I support your rejection of Megalommatis as RS. Nevertheless, this is a regular content dispute, unlike the WP:CFORK violation at Syriacs, which is clearly illegal already on technical grounds, regardless of content. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- All right, but it would be nice to be backed up with your support because I'm tired of how you guys are always sullying my credibility and not giving me any credit even though I contribute with academic sources and try to be honest about presenting my case. I may have nationalistic sentiments but that's with good reason since obviously, we Assyrians are in a bad situation were we can't be passive about attacks on our history from Megalommatis and similar people like John Joseph (who is nothing more than a Megalommatis with a Ph.D). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Man just look at the sources he is using. Maglomantis isn't hte only one; he is using mirror-websites of Wikipedia's page of Arameans. This user is something else. Chaldean (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dab, this kid needs instructions from you. He seriously won't believe me. Here you go: Talk:Assyrian_people#about_Megalommatis. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Man just look at the sources he is using. Maglomantis isn't hte only one; he is using mirror-websites of Wikipedia's page of Arameans. This user is something else. Chaldean (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right, but I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now. I'll certainly chime in again, but if this is really urgent, try AN/I in the meantime. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well it's not really that urgent since the article is locked. But take your time. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Granim map
hook me up with the ticket system, but dont accuse me of not respecting the rules also the map was granted by the scholar should I have him contact you? Its a M-A-P...Peace...Cyrus111 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Assyrian naming dispute
Dab, your input could be needed on Talk:Names of Syriac Christians#Biggs_and_other_verbatim_quotes. Content dispute. Also, would be nice if you'd like to comment my recent additions into the article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Poverty in India Image
There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not Image:Beggar Bodhgaya India.jpg should be a part of the Poverty in India page. Most Poverty in *Country* pages do not have any images, at most 1. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought many images showing extreme poverty in India and has tried to mislead people into thinking this is the way a majority of poor Indians live. There is a vote in which your input would be appreciated. You can find this discussion here Nikkul (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmann, in your talk page this user has made wild accusations on me. I will request you please read the relevant sections on Talk:Poverty in India to give you an inside in this user and to understand who is incivil. You please read the texts like these [13], [14], [15]. The Bodggaya beggar image is more appropriate than others because:
- You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities.
There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.
- This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. There are other editors who honoured me for my contributions. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti-individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
- Please remember the article is not about India, but the article is about poverty. This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. This image, I think, will be very appropriate. This user has informed many partisan editors, like User:Bakasuprman about the image. I will also request you check this user's contributions. I have told you why I am supporting the includsion of this image. This user informed at least thirty editors about this. This user also informed Hkelkar sock like Gahnadar galpa. I have just told you the relevancy of this image. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- That picture does not depict "poverty in India". If it isn't purely sensationalist, it depicts a victim of a form of exploitation that most people would rather not talk about. Please get a clue. rudra (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That picture does depict "poverty in India". Yes it is true that there are able poor, or abled beggars. But such scenes also exists. And this is not the only image in the page, there are other images depicting able poor. Such scenes exists, it is reality, truth. Will it be right to conceal it? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly, you are incapable of paying attention: poor != crippled beggar. Please consult WP:IMAGE and try to follow the section on Pertinence and Encyclopedicity. If you find yourself making heavy weather of it, scroll up a bit until you find a bullet point about "rice". HTH. rudra (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why this is being debated on my talkpage. I haven't even contributed to the article in question. If you want to draw my attention to something, it is usually enough to provide me with the link to the debate, not replicate the debate here. In terms of content, we might need to coin something along the lines "Wikipedia is NOT a tabloid". Whether the image is appropriate depends entirely on the context it is presented in. I suppose I could come up with moderately disturbing images illustrating poverty in Switzerland, but I am not sure what this would achieve. In terms of encyclopedicity, it is much more important to get the overall statistics right. Fwiiw, Image:P7032101 small2.jpg is an excellent image, even typical of the subject matter, and even aesthetic in a certain senes. It would be great if we could get something similar for India. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Council President Pascal Couchepin (Moustache added)
be afraid... dab (𒁳) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ha. Relata refero (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Nirvikalpa
You are invited to justify your deletion of the Ambiguities section in the discussion page of the Nirvikalpa article. It has been temporarily reinstated pending a review. Mayagaia (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of this has turned out to be New Age blather. I've eliminated the OR and identified what I think is a salvageable core - lose the apparent focus on samadhi, which already has an article, and just deal with variations in nirvikalpa- (viz, -yoga, -jnana, -samadhi). rudra (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Footnote from Potter reference
Hello. You changed the footnote from the Potter reference. However, Potter never says any of the things that you put there. If you would like to add that info, then please place another footnote and please give the source. Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did not mean to imply that the information is taken from Potter. What part of it do you feel is controversial? dab (𒁳) 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I set your info as the second footnote. Could you add the source? I think the info is a great addition. It's just a quality issue because I intend to take the article to FA status. Neither Gäbler nor Potter mentions the humanist word-game. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
well, to be honest, the information is taken directly from the German article, and it is in agreement with my general knowledge on the topic, but would have to browse around before I could provide a specific source. dab (𒁳) 08:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- In general, I try to follow our verifiability policy, WP:SOURCES and I stick to books and journals. The German language wiki would not be considered to be reliable enough. I have found from experience of taking another article to FA that some of the historian wiki-editors have very high standards concerning sources. Even when I have cited everything to books, they even question the reliability of some of the books I used (for example, books that are considered old by scholars). If you manage to find a book that backups the info, then please put that in; it is better than nothing. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know. this will need to be straightened out before FAC. The specific bits that need a reference is that Zwingli was named after Ulrich of Augsburg specifically (although since this is the Ulrich, it sort of stands to reason), and that protestant writers took to using his private Huldrych spelling (which is of course a matter of record). I don't think the etymology of Ulrich, and the fact that Huldrych is an unrelated somewhat facetious association needs further backup: German language sources will sort of take this for granted. dab (𒁳) 09:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
point of giving the Arabic for "flag of Iraq" on Flag of Iraq article
Someone added an Arabic template to the talk pages of most of the Arab country flag and and coat-of-arms articles, so such translations were added... 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
people should think before they slap templates on articles. Wikipedia isn't written by bots. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft
{{Db-csd-notice-custom}} Dougie WII (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
{{AFDWarning }} Dougie WII (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
that's cool. seeing that I am having a customized conversation with you, you might also consider communicating by other means than by template messages. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Spin off articles on specific epochs in early history of Christianity?
Dbachmann, any comments on my proposal at Talk:History_of_early_Christianity#Revisiting_the_move? (Best to reply there, I guess.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Bigunicode
Template:Bigunicode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Honor Killing
Hello,
There is a discussion going on here about whether sati, an ancient form of suicide in which a woman voluntarily immolates herself, is considered honor killing. Since you have contributed to the Hinduism page, I thought you would be the right person to ask. I hope you will contribute to the discussion. Thanks
Nikkul (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on this. If some WP:RS describes it in such terms, quote it, if not, Wikipedia cannot on its own come up with the association. If some other WP:RS rejects the association, just quote it, too. dab (𒁳) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate behavior at de.Wikisource
http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Diskussion:Ulrich_Zwingli Please consider respecting the rules of other projects. Thanks --Historiograf (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- You did'nt respect the rules of Wikisource. We have our own policy expecting that contributors will follow them. If you will further ignore these rules I will block you at WS. --Historiograf (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
bullshit. I uploaded a text in good fatih. Someone deleted it. I left a comment on a talkpage. Now what about this was in violation of policy? Your own "Textgrundlage" page has
- Als Quellen kommen sowohl gedruckte Vorlagen als auch im Internet oder auf Datenträger vorliegende E-Texte in Betracht.
I provided a reference to a gedruckte Vorlage. Nowhere on this page does it say I was required to provide scans of the gedruckte Vorlage. If this is your policy, how about you state so up front? The deletion was possibly in violation of your own policy, but I didn't even contest it, I just said I disagreed and walked away. Now since when was it against any sort of Wikimedia policy to civilly disagree on talkpages?? I know this Prussian attitude to dissent (not edit-warring, just reasoned dissent on talkpages) from wiktionary, where people can be blocked just for not showing a fawning attitude towards the admins-that-be. Now some clown from de-wikisource follows me around across projects to tell me I've "misbehaved" even though I have never even interacted with them. Wow, if I was going to block people for disagreeing with me on en-wiki, I would be rid of my admin privileges within five minutes. I do get the impression some people are using the minor and less frequented Wikimedia projects for their private power trips. I mean, who is going to patrol Hungarian Wikisource or Malay Wiktionary and check if communities there are still in line with Wikimedia fundamentals? dab (𒁳) 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea. If I wanted to submit a flawed text, I could fake a scan just as easlily. If the aim is just bona fide verification, the provision of a citation should be good enough. It has been, on Wikipedia, for the past seven years. If we started asking people for scans of every source they cite, not just would the project implode, we would also have much fun with faked scans submitted by our usual suspects. A flawed approach if there ever was one. This is beside the point however: I am not complaining about some decision that was made on de-wikisource, I am complaining about (a) the way it is communicated (nowhere in the guidelines do they say they require scans, you find out when your text is deleted), and (b) the adding of insult to injury by Historiograf above, chiding my "inappropriate behaviour" at de-wikisource when all I have done was arguing a point on a talkpage, which, last time I checked, was the entire point of talkpages. dab (𒁳) 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please respect the rules of de.Wikisource. And no personal attacks, please. Everywhere in the guidelines the necessarity of scans is stressed. Read e.g. our FAQ --Historiograf (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Reception of Tolkien
Reception of Tolkien - nice work! I've taken the liberty of adding it (and two categories - one you created, and another one, which you didn't, and which I'm not so sure about) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Articles newly made/found. Do you think you could possibly add new articles and categories there in future, to keep people aware of what is new? I've also added the article to Template:After Tolkien navbox and stuck that on the article. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Would you have any objection to the article being moved to Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien, in line with Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien? There is also the copy of the "in popular culture" article that got deleted at AfD. See User:Carcharoth/Middle-earth in popular culture. Would that be useful? Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- no no, of course, I realized that there will be a bunch of redirects to this one, I just didn't get around to creating them. The question now is, how to divide material between Tolkien fandom and Reception of Tolkien (and "Tolkienology"): Much of the activities of Tolkien societies would belong under "Reception", or "Study", while "fandom" proper covers the more unsophisticated enthusiasm, the online hype, the hippie era, the dressing-up and re-enacting etc. The creation of a Reception of Tolkien super-article is informed by the fact that for certain aspects, it is impossible to do a meaningful division between "Tolkien studies" and "Tolkien fandom". This is true for the larger Tolkien societies especially, which tend to cover both aspects (and the spectrum in between). dab (𒁳) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Externsteine irminsul detail.jpg
{{di-replaceable fair use-notice}} —Remember the dot (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Question on Panarchy article and etymology
Panarchy is a word which has been created fairly independently by at least three people that is used in a sometimes similar, sometimes different manner. Someone new to wikipedia came along who started an "etymology" section that repeats info in previous sections and then quotes his own Thesis paper.
I did internet research on “eytmology of panarchy” and except from comments by that person and brief mentions in other minor sources couldn’t find anything from very reliable sources on the topic.
So I am wondering if the whole topic should just be skipped altogether, or just mentioned briefly in introduction, and otherwise just keep the article pretty much as originally was with descriptions of the three different uses, and maybe a new miscellaneous section on two other uses. thanks for any advice! Carol Moore 04:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Irfan Shahid
Would be nice if you could leave a comment on this: WP:RSN#Irfan_Shahid. Thanks. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You have removed the additions I made on the "Panchanga" or Ephemeris. Is Panchanga not a fundamental requirement to know about position of stars, grihas, bhavas, etc? The referencs and books listed in the main article also deal about the importance of Panchanga.Hence i thouf ght no additional refrences need to cited. I can add refernces also if need be so that the additions I made are restored. Of course, Panchangam is also an artcile on Wikipedia which gives some information but not complete.--Nvvchar (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't removed your material, I have tagged it for cleanup and moved it further down in the article. Please try to clean up your own additions, and most importantly cite specific sources for them. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There are three articles on this subject in wikipedia - Panchangam, Hindu calendar, Indian National claendar and the addtions I have made. All these have to be merged into one article. Even the main artcle, without my addtions, needs a through review. But who will take the initiative?--Nvvchar (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I know, these articles are a disgrace. They promise a lot of thankless work for anyone willing to tackle them, to be torn down after a week or two by confused drive-by astrologists. Perhaps you can interest people at the Indian noticeboard? I tag them, but I don't have the nerve to actually clean them up. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is a highly comercial subject universally. It would be a herculean task to find a person who can do a free and good job of merging all articles into an acceptable one.--Nvvchar (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as significant a problem is that anyone who volunteered would also need protection from the horde who would inevitably swarm in, each to protect his own favorite nostrums. (It's like: ask three Indian astrologers, and you'll get five opinions.) rudra (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
we'll need to take a step back and reduce our coverage to what can be gleaned from tertiary sources (encyclopedias). Details from secondary sources can then be added, but the overall structure needs to be informed by other encyclopedic attempts at the subject. The alternative is the chaos we have now. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Several universities in India and some in USA have Astrology as a subject course for a diploma or degree. It may be appropriate to approach them to present an unbiased view on the various articles on all psuodo scientific subjects. I feel that Wiki adminisitrators should a take a view on this.--Nvvchar (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"no notability .... that would remotely meet WP:BIO" is a bit of a stretch. I'd say "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" would cover it, as his local state has had him on TV and just about every website talking about odd-ball minor party candidates for president has had a article on him at some time or another. The external links cover most of that. Nagelfar (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've looked at it, but I still fail to see how it should meed WP:BIO. He gets some 1,500 google hits in total. He gets all of four google news hits. That hardly spells "major politician", even at state level. Perhaps if we created an odd-ball minor party candidates article? See Talk:Jackson Kirk Grimes. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey dab, could you help out with expanding this article? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Losar
Dab, Losar is currenting happening, how may I ensure that it is flagged as a current event? Is there a News Wiki article that this Wikipedia article can interwiki? How may I progress this? Is there anything else you recommend?
Blessings in the mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Naming of kings
Hey Dbachmann, do you have any comments regarding the naming of Cilician kings? User:Srnec/Kings of Cilicia. Thanks.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Re:Muhammad
Hi Dab,
My principle is clear:
Non-consenting readers should not involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad
Any practical solution that is consistent with this principle is acceptable to me. Your proposal would work only if people are aware of the existence of picture in Muhammad article (the motivation for installing the package). But if all readers are already aware of this, then my principle is satisfied, and they can read Britannica instead of Wikipedia. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
well, I am afraid your principle isn't all that clear. It is unclear how somebody going online and typing "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad" can be considered "non-consenting" to see whatever it is Wikipedia has to say about Muhammad. Nobody is spamming people with Wikipedia articles, anybody is free to decide Wikipedia is crap or blasphemous and just not visit it (the same holds for the entire internet as a whole) dab (𒁳) 08:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you search Muhammad on google, wikipedia comes up at the very top. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- if you search for "Muhammad" on google, you are bound to find any number of pages that are actively dissing Muhammad. I don't see how you can expect to not find insults against Muhammad when googling him. If you want to be shielded from blasphemy of any description, don't go on the internet, or at least install a no-nonsense filter that blocks any site not hosted in the Arab world. This is like complaining that when googling "sex" you are presented with porn sites even if you were just looking for information on contraception. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I go to some random website, I would expect to see anything. If I want to get real information, I may go to Wikipedia (though I personally don't usually use wikipedia for that but others may do). If I go to wikipedia, I expect to see an encyclopedia, not insults or random stuff. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- if you search for "Muhammad" on google, you are bound to find any number of pages that are actively dissing Muhammad. I don't see how you can expect to not find insults against Muhammad when googling him. If you want to be shielded from blasphemy of any description, don't go on the internet, or at least install a no-nonsense filter that blocks any site not hosted in the Arab world. This is like complaining that when googling "sex" you are presented with porn sites even if you were just looking for information on contraception. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In my book, the question is exactly analogous to the question of "spoilers". Wikipedia articles on novels etc. give a short synopsis of the plot. Some people do not like to be told the plot before they read the book, just like some people do not want to see certain images. This does not keep us from offering the synopsis in the article, but as a matter of courtesy, it should be in a section titled "synopsis", so that the anti-spoiler people can just skip that section if they like. In a similar vein, it could be argued that keeping a 16th century manuscript image depicting Muhammad at the top of the Muhammad article would be just like keeping "Snape kills Dumbledore" in the lead of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Along these lines, I suppose there could be a consensus to keep such images from the lead of the Muhammad article, but there is not going to be a consensus to remove them. That's really about the shape of the question, I am sorry, but I don't think more can be said about it. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- If someone goes to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, doesn't he expect to see that "Snape kills Dumbledore"? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- that's what I was saying: but not in the lead, but under #Battle_of_the_Astronomy_Tower. Analogously, early modern manuscript images of Muhammad are to be expected in the Muhammad article, but not necessarily in the lead, but under "veneration", or "in Ottoman art" or similar. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dbachmann, Since I have not read Harry Potter, I can not exactly follow the argument but I have got a feel of it. Your point is that those pictures are appropriate under a section titled: Muhammad "in Ottoman art" and since we want to transfer a piece of information, we should do it without worrying about the people feeling bad about it. If one puts it that way, then the pictures would be appropriate for the "in Ottoman art" section but we have no such section. We have one big section on depiction of Muhammad. Further, if we are really going to convey an information instead of making a point, we should prove that the number of uncovered face pictures from that period are relatively numerous, and that the period is long enough. Right now, the number of pictures with uncovered face is equal to the number of pictures with covered face, they are placed under the sections like "Beginning of the Qur'an".
- Honesty, I don't think those users who initially found those pictures, uploaded them and added them to the article were motivated by any scholarly motivation, but rather to make a point. Not that it is an argument for removing the pics if one can show that the pictures are indeed one of the representatives of the Muslim art history, but it puts me off, just as the requests of many for outright removal of the pictures without making a good case for it is annoying. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- that's what I was saying: but not in the lead, but under #Battle_of_the_Astronomy_Tower. Analogously, early modern manuscript images of Muhammad are to be expected in the Muhammad article, but not necessarily in the lead, but under "veneration", or "in Ottoman art" or similar. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
my point is that I think there would be a good case for moving the images out of the lead or the "beginning of the Quran" section. They can be moved to later sections, like "veneration", "depictions" etc. If people argued for moving the image out of the lead, they might find enough support to establish a consensus, much like with the Bahaullah case. But I also think that there is no case for removing the images altogether, and all this calling for complete removal not only has no chance of success, it also obscures the real chance of compromise of removing the Siyer-i Nebi out of the lead. I am clearly in the camp annoyed by this "Muslims are insulted, how dare you" campaign, but you would also find that I would support a reasonable campaign limited to keeping the article lead free of depictions. dab (𒁳) 09:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point. I think Natural order will take care of this anyways. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nirayan and Sayana system
In the section on Zodiac, it would be proper to briefly discuss the two systems of Horoscope casting followed in the Eastern system (Vedic astrology)- The Nirayan zodiac, and the West System -Sayana Zodiac and the issue of Ayanamsa.--Nvvchar (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- This will be difficult to source properly, not the least because nirayana is a thoroughly obfuscated abstraction (and the main reason why "which ayanamsa to apply" is so contentious.) rudra (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any standing at the German WP?
Maybe you have been wondering, what I have been doing lately. Well, I was filling discussion pages at the German WP due to the controversy surrounding the German equivalent of the Nazi occultism article. See here: [16]. After two weeks and about 20 hours writing on my part, the article got deleted, although to me it appears as if the discussion came at least to "no consensus". About this, I think I should consider myself to have quit Wikipedia. (Still, I won't leave you alone on the topic of Neo-völkisch movements.) If you want, I can give you the copy of the article in its last revision. I would - again - greatly appreciate your advise and help. Zara1709 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have an account, but I gave up doing much there because my articles kept being deleted. In my book, the mentality at de-wiki is quite "unwikilike" and very Deutsch (as in "Prussian", as opposed to Swiss). See right above for an analogous incident at de-wikisource... dab (𒁳) 10:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This quote against the WP worthiness of Zara1709 sounds familiar and plausible [17]:
Keine Ahnung was das hier ist, aber ein enzyklopädischer Artikel ist es jedenfalls nicht. Wohl irgendwas zwischen Essay und Besinnungsaufsatz. Ah, nach genauen lesen sehe ich da es um ein von der Forschung völlig ignorierte Bestsellerthese handelt das die Nazis von okkulten Geheimgesellschaften kontrolliert wurden und darum in welchen Büchern sie vorkommt. Wow.
Sorry for being interested in suspicious people, and for not being surprised to meet them here all together. Rokus01 (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- So on the German WP an article on the Myth of Nazi occultism, that I had indented to write, got deleted. First, what person quoted assumes, is wrong. The myth of Nazi occultism has not been COMPLETELY ignored, Goodrick-Clarke and H.T.Hakl have written about 30 pages on it, altogether. I had mentioned that only repeatedly at the concerning talk page... Secondly, the German Wikipedia and the community there is far more rigid on 'esoteric' topics. You can try that for yourself. Just start an article on the "Nordische Rasse" there. And thirdly, hey, on the German WP they can't even solve the issue whether the de:Nationalsozialismus was anti-liberal or anti-demcoratic. How did I ever expect them to be able to deal with crypto-historic topic (read: conspiracy theory) about occult influences on Hitler? But wait, the English article on Nazism isn't any better. So I decided to keep myself to such simple questions if Richard Walther Darré had a concept of the Nordic Race. Let's just stick to that. Zara1709 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Hittite king
A tag has been placed on Template:Hittite king requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Of interest?
This ANI discussion [18] - especially this section [19]. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
very interesting indeed. it appears we finally have some real cabals lurking in the dark recesses of IRC, but it's only a matter of time until such pranks hit rock bottom. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Worthy of an RFC?
Dear dab, a particular 'new' user (User:Ism schism) appears to be targetting ISKCON related pages for proposed deletions etc... I know under WP:FAITH we have to try and see other editors as having good faith behind their edits, but what are your thoughts? See below for their edit history:
I'm also suspicious about MBest-son being a sockpuppet. May I ask you for your thoughts? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
articles he put up for deletion: Indradyumna Swami, Sacinandana Swami, Prahladananda Swami, Caitanya Candorodaya Dasa, Hari Sauri Dasa, Sri Hari. These are all arguable AfDs, because the articles in question do not establish notability based on third party sources per WP:BIO. Why this editor chooses to police ISKCON related articles in particular should not concern us. The concerns that the articles may fail WP:NOTE are real, and we should just let the AfDs run their course. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Externsteine irminsul detail.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Externsteine irminsul detail.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wadi el-Hol inscriptions drawing.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wadi el-Hol inscriptions drawing.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for deletion. It still has no sources besides the book itself, and having got hold of a copy of the book, I find that it actually makes no claims to be derived from an authoritative survey, so I see no notability. Since you've edited the article or participated in the old AfD you might like to comment. As there has been confusion about the book's actual content, I'd be happy to back up all the assertions I've made by Emailing you scans of the relevant pages. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Moon phase
A tag has been placed on Template:Moon phase requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Arabic
Hi Dab,
Probably it is because of my weakness in Arabic or my sleepiness, but I can not understand "u" in [20]. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the article is nominated for GA, kissing the hand of the one to review it (the article does actually) :P. Just kidding!! not being serious; someone will review it... Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- it's the nominative (i`rab). it's always difficult to decide whether to include this in transliteration, but Image:Allah.svg clearly shows the desinence. --dab (𒁳) 10:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hello could you see to this.::User Arditbido tried to change pageChaonians by using original research and his own interpretations of it.Then User:DragonflySixtyseven tried to remedy the situation that had escalated to an edit war with me and Ardibito by remaking the page but now its full of even more original research and the dozens of secondary sources are ignored with no reason and are on the talk page[22].I want the page restored to its original secondary sourced statenormal state.The talk page is full of secondary sources but they are being ignored and the page now looks very bad to say the least.Megistias (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, did you notice when you edited Chaonians that the page is fully protected? Just wanted to be sure, since you've got all manner of editors looking to take your scalp... --Akhilleus (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone is POV-pushing, and I don't have time tonight to figure out who. One editor was kind enough to e-mail me a long list of references, which I promised that I would read over the next 48 hours (and I guess I will - and if that means I'll have to re-extend protection, then so fucking be it).
At the very least, it seems to me that the article should mention the dispute. When Thucydides called the Chaonians "barbarians", was he being literal or metaphorical? Both sides in the dispute claim that their interpretation is obviously correct. You'll note that I specified that it's a term "typically (though not exclusively) used for non-Greek speakers".
Clearly and obviously, the issue isn't clear and obvious. If it was, we wouldn't be having this argument about an argument about whether an issue is clear and obvious. DS (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
DS, we are "having this argument" because you decided you had to take admin action, even though you "don't have time tonight to figure out" the case. I assure you, I have figured it out. I have semiprotected the page. It's under control. You are most welcome to study the case and contribute to the article when you do have time of course. And no, the article should not "mention the dispute" until we have a reference there is a dispute in academic literature (as opposed to a dispute between nationalist Wikipedia editors). Disputes need attribution too. dab (𒁳) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I thought I had it figured out and could come up with a more simple version that would satisfy the most people. Turns out it's more complicated than that. Bleh. DS (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article before the intruder ,mentioned efficiently with Scylax the confusion and that they were regarded as "barbarians" due to their habits in the last paragraph.normal state.Please see it.It remained for so long and was neutral in these aspects.Megistias (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- And the dispute with Thycydides is mentioned in the Epirus generic article analysed and resolved.Megistias (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kafkania pebble.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kafkania pebble.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Dodona
Dab, just in case you haven't followed the backgrounds, if you run out of patience with "Dodona", he can be banned or topic-banned again at any time. He was previously banned for disruptive talkpage ranting and sockpuppetry, and has only been back on a "second chance" on massive promises to be good. Well, he did make an honest attempt to be good, that's why I've been tolerating him, but in a way he just doesn't get it. Just a word, and he's gone (hopefully, that is.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know the sort (Ararat arev?). He made a bona fide suggestion and I thought this should be honoured. I told him his material is offtopic. If he keeps going regardless, we'll switch to a sterner register. regards, dab (𒁳) 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hittite Maps
Fine Dab, let's discuss the Hittite maps on the Hittite homepage. Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean Talk:Hittites? It would be nice if we had more "Hittite maps". Perhaps you could take the time to draw one some time? So far, all I have seen are your hurriedly sketched "world history maps". dab (𒁳) 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Your History maps
All else aside, I've noticed you have some maps of your own uploaded to wiki. I like them, especially ones like Image:Rigvedic_geography.jpg. That is a good map and I like the way you labeled the rivers. Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thanks. they are not as good as the ones I pointed out to you though. I just use the GIMP, and usually work in a hurry. Please do not take my criticism personally. I believe in WP:SPADE: if I have an opinion on content, I will comment on content. I do not doubt you are editing in good faith, and I can definitely see possible useful applications for your maps. dab (𒁳) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
... and: Ancient Greek dialects maps
Hello Dieter, could you take a look at Image:Greek dialects.png please? This was an old map you once made, which was recently overwritten with a new, radically different version by User:Megistias, showing northwest Greek extending far more to the north, and of course including Macedonian. Might need some discussion about sources and stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ancient Macedonian (and that of Epirus) is considered Hellenic today.If want to change or improve the map please tell me so and inform me as well.Megistias (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- You could have all spoken to me first and told me to make a legend on the map that would say Macedonian= Hellenic or possibly paleoBalkan.But you have to change all the articles....Megistias (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
do not overwrite my images. If you have made another map based on different sources, upload it under another title. The way you were doing it, your map appeared as if it had been made by me. It is a map of "Greek dialects in the classical period", not of "Hellenic" or "paleo-Balkans". dab (𒁳) 11:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you perhaps add a note on what your sources were? That way, it will be easier to discuss why there are those big differences with respect to NW Greek (Epirus, Megistias' pet area, I'm sure he won't let go of that without a fight!) My guess was that your map might have been restricted to those areas where the dialects are regularly attested in the inscriptional record? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember that I did state my sorces as I was uploading the original image (already knowing at the time that the nationalists were going to bicker about the map). They seem to have been lost in the transition to commons. I'll have to verify this, but I seem to remember my source were lecture notes which in turn were reproducing a map from one of the sources cited at Ancient Greek dialects, possibly Risch. If the sources cited at Image:GrClassic.jpg are used correctly I have no objections, but I don't trust Megistias: he copied the borders off my own map, calling it "Distribución de los dialectos griegos" after the Spanish caption it received at commons, and merely altered the bits that are relevant to his nationalist agenda (viz. fitting NW Greek to coincide with modern Greece plus . That's not bona fide editing. Interestingly, his addition of "NW Greek" is even kept in a colour different from the "NW" of my original map. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems this version, modified after yours by somebody else, mentions Risch as a source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Illyrian gods
Hello again, would you have ten minutes to cast an eye on Talk:Illyrian gods? That article is seriously fishy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- no problem, I tagged it and cleaned it out. Anyone can do that. It should be obvious that such cases need to be dealt with on sight. dab (𒁳) 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I've come to the point where I'd rather go for outright deletion or redirecting. See my talk thread with Megistias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- (To Dab) Yes, I think your solution is the best at the moment. I can't really imagine the Illyrian mythology section expanding much, the evidence is so scanty. I'm amazed that hoax survived so long. There again, the Balkans region is probably the world leader in producing national mysticist lunacy. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I've come to the point where I'd rather go for outright deletion or redirecting. See my talk thread with Megistias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- no problem, I tagged it and cleaned it out. Anyone can do that. It should be obvious that such cases need to be dealt with on sight. dab (𒁳) 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello dab, I've just been reading what you wrote here, I completely agree with and I find it quite interesting. Why is it not mentionned in the article though it is well quoted ? It's been a long time I don't write anything in the Koenraad Elst page, as I was tired of the endless apologetic stuff pushed in by some people. I was the first to point the connections between Elst and the far right but I had only Zyndenbos's site on hand at that time, and that was judged insufficient by some. What you've wrtitten there should be included in the article. Regards, TwoHorned (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- well, the present version seems alright. The background is that the Hindu nationalists are trying to make Elst look good because he is the only "Westerner" who buys into their national mysticist pseudohistory. The reason being, of course, that Elst is a confused far-right mysticist himself. The present article states up front that he was involved with this sort of ideology. I do not know, nor care, what he thinks or does these days, I don't even know if he is still alive (I seem to remember he was hospitalised at some point). Elst is only notable for the interest he roused among fringe racialist extremists. To anyone else, he's just a crackpot. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Right. And, if he's still alive, you'll notice he seems not interested in indian politics anymore. The reason, I think, is that he was looking for some kind of official position in India if the far right had come into power. That would explain his previous allegance with american neocons like Pipes. Thanks anyway. TwoHorned (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Human genetic variation
Hi, I just wrote an lead section to the article Human genetic variation, I know you are very busy but would appreciate it if you could take a minute to have a quick read? I'd appreciate the comments of someone impartial like yourself. Thanks for any help. Alun (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Nordic race
Could you please take a look at the edit history of Nordic race and comment on your recent revert [23]. I spent the whole last week in an edit war with User:Rokus01 who did not want the sentences on Darré and Hans F. K. Günther included, and I suppose that this is about to continue this week. Rokus01 repeatedly accused me of conveying "Nazi POV" with is completely unjustified and was the reason I made a note of his conduct at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. This brought the article to some attention, and I am currently not at all sure which editor is pushing which POV. I suppose with "well-known racialist pov pusher" you meant User:Rudrasharman and not me.
You probably remember that we already had conflicting views on this last summer [24] but you seemed to be satisfied after I had provided references to peer-reviewed literature. This concerned exactly the sentences that are now under controversy between me and Rokus01. Zara1709 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
ah, sorry, I was referring to Rokus. I didn't notice you were involved as well. I'm sorry, I may have missed something, I'll need to look into it again. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see: I'm sorry, I made a mistake: I thought I was "reverting" an edit that had long before been reverted. Apologies, please ignore the edit. dab (𒁳) 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I almost had the illusion that you were sincere in your criticism of Nazi-POV pushers, and really thought about making a rectification to my opinion that you are not.[25] Still I don't get it: Since I am fighting this POV pushing of Zara1709 for a long time now, I wonder why you would be so vehemently AGAINST such edits IF I would be the editor, but AGREE to such edits now they are made by a well known Nazi-POV pusher that you consider a friend? Please tell me at once, you still think to be credible in accusing others of a hidden agenda? Rokus01 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
wtf? who is my "friend" now? I simply made a mistake, I reverted a different edit than I thought I did. That is not an endorsement of the edit I inadvertedly did revert, it was simply a mistaken edit, please just ignore it ok. I would also appreciate if you kept your puerile provocations off my talkpage. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
definition of Kosovo
Several attempts have been made to find a good opening definition for Kosovo (I didn't revert to my definition even once, and I wasn't the only one that made the changes), but all of a sudden you take it back to where it was. Kosovo still isn't a republic, it's merely self-proclaimed with several countries backing it up. It's not even 10-20 countries yet, of all the close to 200 countries in the UN. It isn't in the UN yet, EU, it doesn't go to the olympics, hasn't got the majority of countries supporting it, is still under protection of the UNMIK, so it cannot be declared Republic of Kosovo in the opening line. --Ml01172 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- exacly my point. This is why I insist we give both possible "official names" of Kosovo, on equal footing: "Republic of Kosovo" and "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". It's both or none, really. dab (𒁳) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, if this is necessary then I have two remarks. First, all people that let Republic of Kosovo as a start-term should be forbidden to do so, and two, order of appearance is of great matter - if its international status hasn't yet been recognized as "Republic", than the first thing to say is it's "Serbian province", and than to say it has been recognized by several countries as republic. As I don't like to enter edit wars, I would like to ask you to do the edits, if you agree with me. You have already agreed that it is still "status quo", and that status quo is "province". Thank you. --Ml01172 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
man, I'm the one who has restored mention of "Serbian province". I agree with you. See Talk:Kosovo. But I cannot deal with this now. Some admin should clamp down on the revert warring at Kosovo, you might want to drop a note at WP:AN/I. dab (𒁳) 19:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo protection
I know you had said you didn't have time to go over this article for a time, but I must ask you to have another brief look over current state of it, this conversation, and to recall your last attitudes concerning the matter. The page has been blocked in a complicated state, and I think all my requests and propositions are easily understood from the already mentioned conversation with Jayron32. Thanks in advance. --Ml01172 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your efforts towards unblocking the Kosovo article, and I direct this to you for I don't know anybody else here who can object to this block. I see also see no response to you from the administrator who blocked this article. --Ml01172 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to request a removal of the protection at WP:RFPP. In the future, if you don't want the help of admins, don't bring articles to the attention of admins. We do not have the power to mediate disputes or help editors achieve consensus on an article. I assessed the situation, noticed the two-sided edit war, and took measures to stop it. If all you wished was help in resolving the dispute, use WP:RFC or WP:3O in the future, which are mechanisms that are designed to help bring in uninvolved editors to resolve disputes. Good luck and happy editing! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I politely opined that I consider your approach sub-optimal. It's not the end of Wikipedia, and I have no grudge against you personally. What I was asking for was enforcement of article probation. You locked down the whole article instead. There is a reason article probation is imposed: these are cases where WP:PROT, WP:RFC or WP:3O have been tried and tried again, to no effect, and it was decided to clamp down on disruptive behaviour directly. Full protection is not clamping down on disruptive behaviour, it is clamping down on everybody involved making sure there is a deadlock even if there wasn't one before. dab (𒁳) 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that you did good work with the Kosovo article before it was locked. It is a constant battle to keep NPOV with articles relating to current events like this one does, and I was impressed with the job you did. As a user of Wikipedia, thank you! Cwswb —Preceding comment was added at 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this when you have time? It seems suspiciously fully formed, and was probably deleted at some point, but I'm not sure.... Relata refero (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems it was and was recreated by this account. I don't know enough here, but will try and plough through it in a bit. Relata refero (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is part of the Kamboja spam/walled garden. Could be another candidate for WP:FTN when the articles are rounded up. rudra (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the Kamboja thread [26]. rudra (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- And same fellow, user:Satbir Singh. rudra (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Satbir Singh is editing in good faith, but his obsession with the Kambojas (as a wild guess, I would surmise he considers himself a descendant of the Kambojas, this being the usual cause of such fervour, but there are other roads to fetishism of course, and private motivations aren't our business anyway), and his lack of judgement wrt to rambling and spammy prose makes him a bit of a problem. Nothing like our worse customers, mind, but Satbir does need assistance to keep within reasonable bounds. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Mussav, I have doubts whether it is useful to tag every article associated with ancient Mesopotamia as within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Iraq. There is a separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East for articles dealing with pre-Achaemenid content. Please do only tag topics post-dating the Sassanid period. dab (𒁳) 09:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The History of Mesopotamia extend thru generations, why you think we should stop in a certain generation, in the end Iraq's name represent the history of the lands, that were once existed. Any way you maybe right, but what is the harm to relate it with Iraq project? Eventually the Iraqi members will take care of it in any way. Mussav (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- because the entire point of Wikiproject is dividing topics into manageable sub-fields. The history of anything extends "thru generations", what is your point? It may be useful to define the scope of the "Iraq" project as covering the Rashidun and Ottoman provinces as well as the modern state, but the period 600 BCE to 600 CE clearly falls under "Persian Empire", not "Iraq", and the pre-600 BCE topics clearly fall under "Ancient Near East". If you want to focus on Mesopotamia in particular, it may be a good idea to create a "Wikiproject Mesopotamia", which will be a daughter project of the Ancient Near East one. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firts of all, Saying that Iraq didn't existed until the time you pointed isn't wrong? ask yourself a simple question what did Arab called the Land between the 2 rivers in the Ancient Time? they called it Iraq, Mesopotamia name came from Greek, while the people of Mesopotamia called it in many names. so Iraq name didn't came from nothing, it's refers to the land between the 2 rivers. Iraq's name represent it's history. Mussav (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Mussav here. Any article can be within the scope of several WikiProjects any way. Take Minoan civilization which is part of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and WikiProject Greece.... and I can fill this page with examples of this sort.
- Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 11:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firts of all, Saying that Iraq didn't existed until the time you pointed isn't wrong? ask yourself a simple question what did Arab called the Land between the 2 rivers in the Ancient Time? they called it Iraq, Mesopotamia name came from Greek, while the people of Mesopotamia called it in many names. so Iraq name didn't came from nothing, it's refers to the land between the 2 rivers. Iraq's name represent it's history. Mussav (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- because the entire point of Wikiproject is dividing topics into manageable sub-fields. The history of anything extends "thru generations", what is your point? It may be useful to define the scope of the "Iraq" project as covering the Rashidun and Ottoman provinces as well as the modern state, but the period 600 BCE to 600 CE clearly falls under "Persian Empire", not "Iraq", and the pre-600 BCE topics clearly fall under "Ancient Near East". If you want to focus on Mesopotamia in particular, it may be a good idea to create a "Wikiproject Mesopotamia", which will be a daughter project of the Ancient Near East one. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Any article can be within the scope of several WikiProjects, it is true, the question is one of WP:UCS. It is silly to place Gilgamesh as within the scope of the Iraq project. All that does is clutter the Iraq project with unrelated chaff. Reconsider what is the point of these projects in the first place: it isn't territorial behaviour ("ours!"), it is a tool to sort material by editor interest. If there is enough interest in ancient Mesopotamia, as opposed to the Ancient Near East in general, create a dedicated project, don't spam the Iraq project with Bronze Age topics. It is clear from Mussav's reply that his motivation is naive patriotism. This isn't helpful. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, don't Ignore Iraq's History, I already said it on WP Iraq and I will say it here, The Ancent Mesopotamia is Iraq's History. if you ask any Persian what is the History of Tajikistan, the Answer is Persia, then ask him what is the History of Iraq. Nothing, We just a modern day country. What a prejudice, Iraq is everything, Babylon, Assyria, Sumer, Abbassid... etc. so don't say we are not Mesopotamia. we have the right to Link Mesopotamia's pages to WP Iraq. Mussav (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
please read what I am saying. I am not ignoring anything. Your patriotism is entirely misplaced in a matter of pragmatic categorization. The point is, you are spamming article talkpages with barely related templates. I can accept an "Iraq" template gracing Talk:Mesopotamia, but with Talk:Gilgamesh, the point of ridicule has been passed. Tagging Mari, Syria (Syria) or Elam (Iran) is outright false. Please try to WP:UCS if you have any. Please try to pull your own weight and avoid wasting other people's time. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well you are right about Mari and Elam, I added the tag because they were once under the Akkadian Empire. but it's have nothing to do with Iraq's location. what's wrong with Gilgamish? Mussav (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
you are not listening. Iraq is a state founded in 1919. Your ancestors may have lived in Mesopotamia, but that has nothing to do with the state as such. Please at least try to read and understand what I am telling you. You are making it perfecly clear that you are not here to help us organize Wikipedia, but just to piss against trees marking your national territory (what with the giant flag on your userpage already). Get a grip, or pray find another forum to do that. dab (𒁳) 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- [nonsense removed] Mussav (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why did you remove my comment? is this how you make a decent conversation? the things that you think it's right, stayed... and the things that you don't like... is removed? Any way, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, Iraq is not just a modern-day country state, Iraq is a History, and this is fact. peace. Mussav (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In a reply to your comments of WPAP deals with *modern* "Assyrians", not with ancient Assyria, appearantly you haven't read the first sentence of the first paragraph of the project. It indeed does deal with modern and ancient Assyria. That is on what ground the project was founded on. Chaldean (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- that's pointless then and should be altered. It is only conductive to nationalist confusion of the sort we saw at Talk:Chaldean. Wikiprojects are not patriotic clubs, Chaldean. If the sort of thing we see at WPAP and with Mussav gets any worse, we'll need more strict guidelines. We also do not want Wikiproject that are in effect pov-pushing tag teams, and it does seem WPAP is exactly that (what with the flag used in the template). It will need to be split or merged into a project with a clear scope. dab (𒁳) 16:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Greece is separated between modern and ancient. The reason for this is the project is so humongous that it needed two projects to handle the subject. But when it comes to Assyria and Assyrian people related pages, its only a handful, and thus that is why the project hasn't been separated. There are over 8,000 modern Greek related pages alone [[27]], compare that to just less then 500 [[28]] modern and ancient Assyrian related pages. So that is why it would be foolish to separate the two. Now the WPIraq issue is something totally different. I suggest you and Mussav get a neutral 3rd person to discuss the issue. But please, don't combine the two issues. WPAP situation is totally different from that of WPIraq. Chaldean (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- 3rd opinion might be needed, since- although I am not a member of the WikiProject Iraq- I might not be totally neutral. Again, WikiProject Greece encompasses many articles (many many articles including the one I referred to above) not related to modern day Greece, should we go there and tell them that WikiProject Greece is only concerned with modern Greece? Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
can we just be pragmatic about this? I don't really fancy to be involved in drawn-out disputes that do not even concern content in article space. I am perfectly willing to compromise. You will note I haven't removed all of Mussav's tags, just the more far out ones. It is perfectly arguable to tag an article on an archaeological site with the Wikiproject on the modern country the site happens to be located in, no problem with that. I must say I find it redundant to tag articles like Iliad with both "WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome" and "WikiProject Greece". Seeing that the former is a logical daughter project of the latter, that's simply redundant. My primary concern is excessive template clutter, however, and luckily we have {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to make that problem less acute. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since Mussav is blocked for 48 hours following the incident here unfortunately, he will not be contributing to this discussion. Like yourself, I really do not want to waste my time on this issue anymore, a time that could be productively invested in doing something else. So, what would you consider acceptable to be tagged with the WikiProject Iraq? Do you object the tagging of ancient civilizations with WikiProjects related to their modern day counterparts? Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 09:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am opposed to editors like Mussav who are clearly abusing the tagging system just to spam their national flag on as many talkpages as possible. I am open to any reasonable approach and have no fixed opinion at all, except that the point of Wikiproject tagging must have some utility. Avoid redundant tagging with a parent project's tag if there is a clear daughter project. Again, if we are looking at an archaeological site, it is no problem to tag them with the modern country too, since the site as such is of course part of the modern country as well. A list of Bronze Age kings, however, bears really no relation to the country of Iraq and is only cluttering the project scope. dab (𒁳) 09:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it has been sort of a common practice to tag articles with as many tags as they can hold, a problem perhaps not limited to one particular WikiProject, but to many (if not most) WikiProjects. I think it is ultimately the decision of the Iraq WikiProject members to decide how they you want to define the scope of their project. I have been helping them out over there, and will ask for their opinions, here is the format of the question I will be posing there
- "User:Dbachmann has proposed to limit the scope of the WikiProject Iraq to include only articles related to the time period from 1919 to the modern era as well as archaeological sites, which will exclude Iraq articles that are tagged with daughter, or separate projects (exempli gratia; Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East ).
- Examples of excluded articles (Gilgamesh)"
- And then, open it for voting and see what comes out of it... Will that be fair and will you respect their decision?
- Cheers!
- Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 09:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am opposed to editors like Mussav who are clearly abusing the tagging system just to spam their national flag on as many talkpages as possible. I am open to any reasonable approach and have no fixed opinion at all, except that the point of Wikiproject tagging must have some utility. Avoid redundant tagging with a parent project's tag if there is a clear daughter project. Again, if we are looking at an archaeological site, it is no problem to tag them with the modern country too, since the site as such is of course part of the modern country as well. A list of Bronze Age kings, however, bears really no relation to the country of Iraq and is only cluttering the project scope. dab (𒁳) 09:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
well, I am trying not to be a prick about this. I suppose it would make sense to include into "Iraq" even historical articles as far back as the 650s (Islamic conquests). But no, it is not exclusively up to a project's members to decide their scope: Wikiprojects are expected to show a certain ability for collaboration between themselves. Talk: space isn't project-internal talkspace, and a project cannot claim an article talkpage as its "territory" without consultation with the community at large. The point is that it makes sense to tag any article with the most relevant Wikiproject. For example, it will make sense to tag with "Wikiproject Greece" all articles related to the Byzantine Empire, until there is a daughter project dedicated to the Byzantine Empire. Once there is such a project, it will be redundant clutter to tag all Byzantine topics with both "Greece" and "Byzantine Empire". In the same spirit, it will make sense to tag articles on the Rashidun period with both "WikiProject Islam" and "WikiProject Iraq" until there is a dedicated "WikiProject Rashidun Caliphate". Once there is such a dedicated Wikiproject, tagging its scope with its parent projects will be redundant clutter. dab (𒁳) 09:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's about Iraq and Iraq's History, Obviously when mentioning Iraq's history I mean Mesopotamia. The Persian Period can be added to WP Iran, (btw, just an additional info, yes, They conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for centuries. but that doesn't mean there were no original people of Mesopotamia in that time. There was Assyria, Babylonian,... etc even Arab lived during the rule of the Persian Empires) again, my point is, I'm with mentioning "before and after" the Persian periods to Iraq's history. I already explained that Arab used the word "Iraq" to the land between the 2 Rivers; in matter of fact people still call as Bilad Al-Rafiden (the Land between the 2 Rivers) Instead of Iraq. So I have no Idea why it's so hard to mention our History, "Iraq's history". Please don't delete my comments, you have to see the other side's ideas and how they think. Thank you for listing. Mussav (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...
I finally found out about Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive14#Rex_Germanus.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29...
Being that a took a rather long WikiBreak to deal with personal problems, I would have appreciated it if either you or Rex had taken the liberty of notifying me that I was being mentioned; I do not like being secretly mentioned in conversation -- it is disresepectful.
Your statement in your comment about me seems to imply that I have been somehow insensitive towards groups? I wouldn't go as far as say you are calling me a Nazi (which Rex had previously done), but I find that mildly offensive; the German side of my family is Jewish and Catholic and left BECAUSE of Hitler's rise so referring to me as a national socialist or saying that I have any leanings towards that viewpoint would be strongly incorrect.
I am simply proud of my German and Polish heritage, but I am also an American (as you already know). Unlike what Rex did (before he was apparently banned), I tried to limit my POV and simply tried to remove obviously hateful remarks that biased articles. I would request that you limit comments that seem to be inciting me towards reprisal since they will not work.
Antman -- chat 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
that's so long ago, I had do dig up who you even are. All I said about you on that page was "Ulritz and Antman were both self-declared German nationalists, and, little surprisingly, US born ethnic German ones." I never called you a Nazi. It was Rex who mentioned you, and I replied to his point. I do not feel obliged to notify every user I mention in passing. There can be no talk of "secretly", since the discussion is in the open. I have no beef with you at all, or I would have addressed you directly. dab (𒁳) 08:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
It means a lot. I try, but you seem to do a lot more - like keeping maybe half of Wikipedia afloat :)
Veropedia's coming along OK: it's all quite rough and ready and sharp on the edges, but the basic idea is a very good one. It has more chance of actually being a reliable source, and of being a big one, than either Wikipedia and Citizendium do. The main problem is actually finding enough Wikipedia articles in a good enough condition to import to Vero - but I guess that's our job. It all takes time, I guess. The upload process is fairly complex, but when you write or see something that you reckon is good enough just let me know and I can do the import myself. Entry standards aren't massively high: short-but-accurate is fine, as you can see. Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- then you definitely need to streamline import procedures. Certified editors should be able to import articles with a click. There should also be a standard procedure of coupling Wikipedia's GA process to Veropedia (with caveats). I'll certainly look into the project some time. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing CSD tags.
While i do not want to question your quality as an editor, i don't think that this is a worthwhile redirect: Online petition to remove Muhammad depictions from Wikipedia. I don't think that this will ever be used as a search term, and its certainly not done to redirect to an article space telling it is a petition. Also, removing speedy templates on pages you created is something that should not be done, even if you are certain you are right. Also Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored states that articles can be offensive to some people. This however, does NOT mean that the images should be removed. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, i can agree with the notability here. However, wasn't there a shorter line that could be used as a redirect? Chances that someone will actually type this are near nill. There are simply to much variations possible. (IE: Remove muhammed images from Wikipedia is just as valid as this one) :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
New Ancient Greek dialects map
I've made a draft at commons:Image:AncientGreekDialects.svg, based on the J. M. Hall source I mentioned the other day. Comments and suggestions welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- very nice, thanks for your effort. Could you also upload an unlabelled version for inclusion in a clickable map? Could you specify which period the situation depicted corresponds to? 500 BC? You'd expect a wider spread of Attic from the 5th century. dab (𒁳) 13:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- It looks so tidy and neat.Megistias (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good point about the period. Actually, the map itself doesn't say anything about that, but from Horrock's text one can conclude that he means c.500 (p.65. It's included in a chapter on "The prehistory and early development of Greek". The chapter begins with "If a traveller at the beginnings of the 5th century B.C. were to set out from Athens towards Megara..." and then points towards this map.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and the unlabelled version is on the way. Good idea too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
ok, well done. The main difference between 500 BC and 400 BC is the wider spread of Attic. I suppose the dialect spoken in Epirus is anyone's guess, and it's speculation either way to label it either NW Greek or non-Greek. My guess would be that Hall interpolated Epirus from epigraphic evidence in Kerkyra, while Risch left it blank for lack of direct evidence. Or are there NW Greek inscriptions newly discovered in mainland Epirus since the 1950s? dab (𒁳) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure Megistias will have a heapload of answers to that. :-) Yes, I think there was some mentioning somewhere of inscriptional evidence found at Dodona, including Greek personal names in Epirotic tribesmen. Stuff like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see. There is at least one of the 3rd c. BC[29], but that's rather too late to reach a conclusion for 500 BC. I suppose the line between NW Greek and non-Geek Balkanic (Illyrian) must run across Epirus, but where precisely is anyone's guess. Prehistory is prehistory, you can't look a the stones and decide which language was spoken there at a given moment in time. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- PHI Greek Inscriptions, I dont remember the books right now on specific inscriptions but there have been many discoveris since the 50's making even Borza to be sure about Epirus.Megistias (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- What would it take for you guys to be sure? A time machine? How could everyone by Illyrian when illyrian is undiscovered and the "Illyrians" were Venetic and some of them actually Illyrian? Since the Dorians brought the ancient Greek language from Northern ancient Greece you assume that they later lost it?What is the logic here?Or is it just isolating the question in the specific era and finds?The ancient Greeks were at the North and this modern view is Athenocentric.Tribal ancient Greeks were still ancient GreeksMegistias (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
cool. Megistias' Image:EpirusEduMap.jpg looks reasonable too (although I haven't verified the attributions: it is suspicious to have fully five books cited as the origin of a single map...). Interestingly, the Iron Age Greek/Illyrian language boundary seems to correspond remarkably well with the modern Greek-Albanian border. dab (𒁳) 15:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually with the Ancient border with illyrians and not with the modern one if you see a map.You guys havent answered me the above yet since you seem to be the scientists and me just a reader.Megistias (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- References say Macedones & Epirotes were Ancient Greeks.Thracians and Illyrians were not.Thats what i know .Please answer me the above questions so i cant get what your insistences are?Megistias (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
what are you talking about? I was evaluating your map, I wasn't intending to enter a dispute with you. I regard your contributions with suspicion because you were caught in fraudulent behaviour before, but I recognize most of your contributions are ok, and I have no issue with you at present. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am talking about the criteria and what are they so that scientists can be sure about a historical fact.You seem like academicians.Megistias (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- this isn't a scientific question. It's a question of plausibility. If there is 5th century BC epigraphy in Chaonia, it will seem likely that the Chaonians spoke Greek. If there is none, it's still plausible, but uncertain. It seems overall evidence favours the Chaones being Greek. This doesn't mean it will ever be "certain" beyond doubt. The 5th century BC in Epirus is for all practical purposes prehistory.
- if you look at Fut. Perf.'s map (after Hall 1995), you will see that the Chaones are exactly on the boundary of NW Greek. There is no way we will ever be able to draw these boundaries to a precision of 10 km. The Chaones are literally a boundary case. dab (𒁳) 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- For this other then the fact that they were from epirotes,
- I am talking about the criteria and what are they so that scientists can be sure about a historical fact.You seem like academicians.Megistias (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Heine, Thomas. Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, 1997, ISBN 3515072225. When the Chaonian people in the mid-fourth century consulted the oracle of Zeus at Dodona they called their own community a polis although at that time the Chaonians were settled Kata komas and must have been an ethnos rather than a polis.
- Hornblower, Simon. The Greek World, 479-323 B.C., 2002, ISBN 0415163269. "Even before about 385 the Molossian tribes had combined with the neighbouring Thesprotians and Chaonians to form a Molossian state with a king and officials called prostates (president), grammateus (secretary), and tribal representatives called demiourgoi also hieromnemones some kind of Cult figure (See for all of this SGDI 1334-67, Also seg 23.471,15 synarchontes federal officials)"..."Orestis was part of the federal organisation".
Megistias (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, this is the Balkans. This is much like the case of the Macedonians. They certainly were Hellenized from the 4th century BC. This doesn't mean they were "Greek" in the 6th century BC. The 5th century was sort of a transitory period, during which you could say they gradually drifted into the Hellenic sphere. Sure, this "Molossian state" may have been modelled after Greek states. Does that mean that all its citizens were Greeks? That would be like saying, hm, Kosovo is an Albanian state. Are all Kosovar Albanians? No, but 88% are. In 1960, 67% were. Imagine, if you will, the scenario that perhaps in 400 BC, 67% of the Molossian state was "Greek", and by 350 BC, 88% was "Greek". By 300 BC, everyone was Greek anyway. You cannot discuss these questions without specifying which year you are talking about. dab (𒁳) 15:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hesiod included Makednos as brother to Magnes in his writings.It would be pretty clear if Macedonians were phrygians for example.Since the Dorians brought the ancient Greek language from Northern ancient Greece you assume that they later lost it?If they were Barbarians and non Greeks they would be called as Illyrians or Thracians.But they were not.Megistias (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to demonstrate how these questions are approached by scholarship. You "know" of course, because of your nationalist convictions. Let me warn you that I am extremely bored, and somtimes disgusted, by nationalism. Of course you have "sources". Only, you don't read them as a thinking human, you read them as a nationalist. Have fun. dab (𒁳) 16:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- No i dont,how could everyone above thessaly be illyrian and thracian and not ancient greek and this would not be noted by any writer and be considered greek? When i read the secondary sources and they say they were ancient greeks what would i think that they were thracians?I am bored too from constant doubting based in modern status of events.All the foreign writers are not greek nationalists and i don't quote modern greek ones.Megistias (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo
Shalom chaverim! I noticed you've reverted some of my edits on Kosovo. I would truly appreciate your assistance in maintaining the WP:SS guidelines, but please accept my additions or changes, which are actually well cited and promote a rather NPOV. We need a history of Kosovo that is complete and all-inclusive. The current version is one that chops off the ancient history because it pertains to the Albanians rather than Serbs. It’s like one of these attempts to talk about Israel without mentioning its glorious past for political reasons. Kosovo's history does not begin with the 12th century either.--Getoar (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Getoar, you want to edit the History of Kosovo article. The "History" section at Kosovo is far, far too long as it stands. There is no room to ramble on about ancient Illyria. Have you actually looked at the WP:SS page? It's the precise opposite of "all-inclusive". Also, a bit less harping on "glorious pasts" please. Do read WP:NPOV before you continue. dab (𒁳) 21:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- By "all-inclusive" I mean that it would not wipe out a line about ancient history. The current one makes it sound like there is no ancient kingdom at all. Then, what about my other additions. Those are necessary I think.--Getoar (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- nothing is known about the ancient kingdom. Details go to Moesia and Prehistoric Balkans please. Not to Republic of Kosovo, please. Stay focussed. No additions, what we want is tightening, as in Summary. --dab (𒁳) 21:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- By "all-inclusive" I mean that it would not wipe out a line about ancient history. The current one makes it sound like there is no ancient kingdom at all. Then, what about my other additions. Those are necessary I think.--Getoar (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please look at the Kosovo article, Specifically this diff by Getoar? He added around 4000 bytes, and some have raised concerns over NPOV at AN/I. BalkanFever 09:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
==`Ali==
Most comments were posted at the same time, Henc the somewhat unreadable order
I'm sorry, but how on earth did you get the idea this might be a speedy deletion candidate? dab (𒁳) 12:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any special reason why there is an ` before the name of Ali? It kind of looks like a strange redirect. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- (Response written before new comment was posted) I expected this was a CSD R3: Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created.. Apparently that was not the case. I never knew words excisted with a ` as the first character. Quite interesting they do :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
it's just a transliteration. ʿAlī would be better, but people cannot always be bothered to find that character. dab (𒁳) 12:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't think about that. Thank you for fixing it. --Raphael1 14:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Your long history of POV-pushing has caught up with you, finally. Ahahaha.
You're up at the court of public opinion. Relata refero (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
with every nationalist twit on Wikipedia calling for my hide, I must be doing something right... --dab (𒁳) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Nuvola_apps_important_yellow.svg/48px-Nuvola_apps_important_yellow.svg.png)
Another editor has added the {{prod}}
template to the article The Primary Classical Language of the World, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}}
template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
disclaimer/whatever box
I don't think it's worth arguing about with him - he's convinced he's right it's not a disclaimer, we are convinced it is. In the long run, it might be better to let him try to add it - it will be very quickly nuked by the community (and if it isn't a WP:SNOW, I'd eat my hat) and that then provides another example of clear community consensus, the next time someone suggests it. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- sure, I was just pointing out the reason why it's going to be nuked. If he choses not to listen, no harm done. dab (𒁳) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Kosovo naming guidelines
I've drafted a set of naming guidelines for Kosovo, loosely along the lines of the earlier WP:MOSMAC, which I created ages ago. Could you possibly take a look and see what you think? It's been a pain drafting them, and I'm sure I've not got everything right first time around, but I would very much appreciate your views in the light of your experience with ethnic conflicts. Please see User:ChrisO/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo intro
Hi. What I think we should do is build a consensus on the intro, and then protect it somehow. Maybe we could create a template called "Kosovo Intro", protect it, and insert it into the article, so that nobody will edit war about independence, recognition and whatnot. This is better that protecting the whole article, which does actually need improvement. Obviously it will be only for a short period of time, but I think it should be considered. BalkanFever 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- transcluding a protected template is a possibility, but we should only envisage that if vandalism reaches unmanageable levels. A stable consensus can be implemented even without full protection, and it is desireable to leave the lead unprotected, becuase there will also be many unproblematic tweaks people will want to do. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but unproblematic tweaks will probably not be needed once a consensus is reached. I'm looking at it more from an outside perspective: I look up Kosovo, I will read only the intro (maybe skim through the rest of the article), and since I am naive I will believe everything. The point is while we can revert minor edits regarding Kosovo's status, people who read the "wrong" version of the page are done a disservice. It's probably not that big a deal, but I think we should keep transclusion in mind. BalkanFever 11:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Bahira
Dab, would you like to help out on the Talk:Bahira discussion? Some Muslim is offended by the use of scholarly Syriac sources, and has decided to take it upon himself to remove them off of the article, by the rationale of getting "offended". This is ridiculous and against WP:CENSOR. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"Balkanization" (again?)
Re this: sorry Dab, but didn't we talk about this some time back? I don't think it's a good idea to use "Balkanization" in this way. First, Balkanization in its current sense refers to fragmentation, whereas emergence of dialect continua is a process crucially involving convergence along with divergence. On a more general scale, I don't like the implication (probably not intended) that the sociolinguistic conditions in the Balkans were always the same, and always something distinctive from other language areas. Today it's fragmentation; a couple centuries back when the sprachbund was being formed it was multilateral convergence; back in prehistoric times who knows what it was. Except for the fact that it was probably pretty multilingual back then too, just like most places were. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- sorry, I didn't remember we had been over this before. I could not find any contributions of mine in the edit history. I can refer to our present Balkan sprachbund article, which has Jouko Lindstedt computed in 2000 a "Balkanization factor" which gives each Balkan language a score proportional with the number of features shared in the Balkan linguistic union, so that the usage I intended doesn't seem to be entirely non-existent. dab (𒁳) 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't remember on what page we discussed it, must be a while back. Well, was it with you? I think it was. Anyway, never mind. Thanks for the pointer to the Lindstedt paper, okay, he uses the term this way, but still, that's a completely different notion than the common political one, and as such highly ambiguous and possibly confusing to the lay reader; plus, what you have in mind with the ancient languages is probably neither the one nor the other but yet something different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- you may be right, and I will be grateful if you improve upon my edits. I guess I mean to say that there may have been a Thraco-Illyrian sprachbund, which offers itself as a direct parallel, nay predecessor, of the contemporary Balkan sprachbund. dab (𒁳) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't remember on what page we discussed it, must be a while back. Well, was it with you? I think it was. Anyway, never mind. Thanks for the pointer to the Lindstedt paper, okay, he uses the term this way, but still, that's a completely different notion than the common political one, and as such highly ambiguous and possibly confusing to the lay reader; plus, what you have in mind with the ancient languages is probably neither the one nor the other but yet something different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This one's lovely. Get it on DYK! :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have declined your speedy. It's not a copy of an external website. It's a copy of Battle of Baghdad (1258). Are you sure your tag was the correct reason? GBT/C 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken, but nevertheless I don't think it's patent nonsense (ie. gibberish) particularly since we allow a fair bit more latitude in userspage than in the main articlespace. I've put a {{userpage}} on it to make it clear it's not a real article. If you wish to try another speedy then from what you say {{db-copyvio}} may be more appropriate, but I cannot immediately see the text alleged to be copied from the site you cite. If you can find the original location of the text then by all means tag it again. Thanks! GBT/C 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this seems to be a copy of Battle of Baghdad (1258) before my deep revert. rudra (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
the point is, Geir Smith appears to be abusing Wikipedia user namespace to host his hilarious nonsense about (unsure if this catches its drift) a Tibetan Buddhist world conspiracy dating back to the Mongol invasions. Yes we are lenient about stuff kept in user space. There is still WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. And if that doesn't apply here I must seriously wonder where it might. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)