![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is there a correct way to respond to these sorts of mass edits? I reverted on a couple of pages I watched and when I took a look at the contribution history I thought asking someone more experienced would be useful. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 19:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dbachmann,
the maintenance tag on the top of the article Swiss federal election, 2011 does not mean that the article is bad or the information in it was not true. It just invites all users to look out for sources and to add references and in-line-citations. What is bad about it? It is just standard to have these labels where there are justified. They are useful to improve articles. And this article obviously still needs references. I guess you know the principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Kind regards -- RJFF ( talk) 20:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are talking about. Did I remove a maintenance tag? -- dab (đł) 06:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey dab, I've had some dealings with you in the past, so I thought I'd ask your advice on how to proceed on this. I noticed on a page I follow, David Rohl, that a user, User:Lung salad, tagged it with the category "pseudohistorians." I see on the category's talk page ( Category talk:Pseudohistorians) that there was a rather under-discussed, in my opinion, decision to keep the category. I have severe problems with labeling people "pseudohistorians," especially in the biographies of living persons. Also, while I'll agree (as an actual historian myself) that people like Velikovsky and Hancock and Baigent peddle psuedohistory, I have never heard the term "pseudohistorian" and a quick Google Book Search shows it is virtually nonexistent term. I think tagging someone's page with a category like "psuedohistory" is acceptable, if there is a verifiable secondary source calling it such, but, without such a source calling someone a pseudohistorian, Wikipedia is creating a category of people and a thing that does not exist. Take David Rohl, for instance, sure his theories are not accepted, but they are presented as a historian would present history. Even someone like Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh, they are just wrong, what they peddle is pseudohistory, but are they pseudohistorians? I don't know, since there is no such term. Should we call Isaac Newton a pseudoscientist because he dabbled in alchemy and his physics were replaced by Einstein's? I don't know. In fact, there is a pseudoscientist category, but Newton isn't in it, because I doubt there is a source calling him one. I just find the imposition of "pseudohistorian" on pages rather arbitrary, especially without secondary sources labeling someone a "pseudohistorian." I guess what I'm saying, is pseudohistory yes, pseudohistorian no. TuckerResearch ( talk) 18:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Et cetera: Talk:David_Rohl#Pseudohistory TuckerResearch ( talk) 04:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to reorganize Template:Ancient Mesopotamia. See here for the discussion; see here for the actual new draft. Your input is appreciated!-- Zoeperkoe ( talk) 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Sir, as an administrator, may we have your assistance on the Germanic Neopaganism page? Someone has hijacked it in an attempt to foster a small group.
Please read debate here
Thank you.
-- ThorLives ( talk) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
DBachmann, the problem that I mentioned with the Germanic Neopaganism page has been solved. I see you are busy here so I wanted to mention the fact.
Sorry that I posted incorrectly on your talk page. I did not hit the "new section tab" last time.
When you have a chance, please visit the Germanic Neopaganism page. We need someone to clean up errors, including some that I might have unintentionally made!
-- ThorLives ( talk) 23:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Dbachmann. Since you recently converted Muslim scholar from a redirect into a disambiguation page, I hope you will quickly help WP:FIXDABLINKS by correcting the many other existing Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Muslim scholar" and fix them to link to the correct article. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
yeah, the redirect was broken before I fixed it. The problem is list of modern-day Muslim scholars, the former redirect target, as the link Muslim scholars is mostly found in the context of medieval Muslim scholars (for good reason, too). What I have done is, I have drawn attention to the fact that there are many, many broken redirects. I have not created the broken redirects. -- dab (đł) 11:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This is getting incredibly annoying. Jembana and his ilk have copypasta'd (with appropriate slight adaptations, just to make it seem more relevant) their sermon all over the related Wikipedia articles to promote the Tartessian-as-Celtic hypothesis. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 17:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree this is annoying. Revert on sight of course. This is hardly even notable on the artice about Tartessian, let alone to topics like "History of Portugal". -- dab (đł) 08:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I wonder why you preferred "Agilaz" than "Egil" as article name for Agilaz. Is there a naming rule? Egil seems more common. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 19:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Egil is the Old Norse name. Aigil the Old High German one. Agilaz the reconstructed Common Germanic one. You may have noted that the article is not just dedicated to the Old Norse tradition, but to the comparison of the related character in distinct traditions. -- dab (đł) 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop removing Category:Categories named after former countries, Category:Categories named after wars, Category:Categories named after literary texts from various categories. As eponymously named categories, they are not "redundant" to any other categories. Good Olâfactory (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
As has been explained to you very patiently by many people, they are. You have a long history of refusing to Get It, and I do not feel obliged to spend any time with futile arguing in such a case. Sheesh, you do not even understand the meaning of the word "eponymous". Do yourself a favour and get a dictionary, and then spend some time reading instead of editing. -- dab (đł) 08:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Check this out. A non-stop chuckle-fest. rudra ( talk) 22:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Human stupidity is bottomless. The internet just gave a platform to the stupidity that was already there. Wikipedia was intended as an island of reason in the sea of intellectual entropy that is the internet. This island obviously needs dikes. -- dab (đł) 08:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've done a complete rewrite of the article Kaiserchronik. Since you started it, maybe you would like to do a crit of this? -- Doric Loon ( talk) 09:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you might be interested in the discussion on this page: Talk:Pictish language. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Dbachmann,
Bei dem Image ist folgendes inhaltliches Problem entstanden got. "X" entspricht dem gr. "Chi" in der Lautung "ch". In der de. Artikeldiskussion de:Gotisches Alphabet wurde das bemerkt. Vieleicht lÀsst sich das reparieren?
Beste GrĂŒĂe -- Alexander Leischner ( talk) 21:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
http://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Datei:Gothic_alphabet.png&filetimestamp=20070512135942
hm, eines meiner "FrĂŒhwerke", aus dem Jahr 2004. Inzwischen gibt es ja Unicode fĂŒr Gotisch, und es wĂ€re wohl am besten, diese Datei gar nicht mehr zu verwenden. Aber "falsch" ist es in dem Sinne nicht, es mag schon sein, dass die "Lautung" (in deutscher Orthographie) "ch" entspricht, aber das ist eben gleichbedeutend mit IPA /x/, und die Umschrift von gotischem Text verwedet hier auch x, einfach weil keine Verwechslungsgefahr besteht. -- dab (đł) 07:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ich hatte das auch nicht anders aufgefasst, zumal der LAut im Gotischen nur in Verbindung mit Fremdwörtern wie "Xristus" und wesentlich bei diesem verwendet wird. Danke fĂŒr Deine Antwort in der Artikeldisk. GrĂŒĂe -- Alexander Leischner ( talk) 10:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just an alert that discord continues at Germanic Neopaganism.
-- ThorLives ( talk) 05:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if you've already seen this one, but I thought it was funny: Homelands of the world's language families: a quantitative approach. Check page 17! That's the Punjab! To be fair, most of their results are good, and fit the usual proposals; but perhaps because they are so obvious anyway. (In North America, the Algonquian result is excusable â should be in the Prairies, Alberta/Montana, according to recent thinking â, the Na-DenĂ© result, too â South Central Alaska is usually given â, the Uto-Aztecan result may be due to overcounting of Nahuatl dialects â should rather be in SoCal/Arizona/NW Mexico, presumably the Sonoran Desert â, and the Siouan result is interesting, as it is surprisingly plausible and close to the consensus, and avoids the overcounting fallacy. The results for Eskimo-Aleut and Japanese are also unexpected.) But their urheimat results for Indo-European and Uralic are seriously off. I'm not even sure why. Did they overcount (or overrate/"over-weight") the Indo-Iranian (especially Indo-Aryan) and the Saami languages (and to an extent, the Finnic languages, although the circle is really in central-eastern Lapland, which is seriously weird) like that? It should be obvious that you can't treat a dialect continuum like the Hindi belt as a dozen languages and the German-Dutch continuum, which is of similar time depth, as only two, if you aim for a meaningful result. It is clear that most living Indo-European lineages are spoken in Europe! That result is just as weird as the Uralic one, even keeping in mind the bias in language counting. I suspect they were also misled by lexical replacement â apparently, they used a lexical distance criterion, too, not just a plain count of varieties. That said, they do admit that they found two lesser, secondary apparent centres of expansion, namely the Balkans and Eastern Anatolia. Inexplicably (not really inexplicably, of course), however, they decide in favour of Anatolia, while handwaving the Balkans away. You could just as well decide in favour of the Balkans, and given the historically attested Indo-European lineages, they are the most obvious centre of gravity of Indo-European. On that basis, the urheimat should clearly be sought in Eastern, especially Southeastern Europe, say, in the Danube valley. Anyway, I think that a nested centre-of-gravity method would overcome the weaknesses of the method, and give much more accurate results, as long as you use a consensus tree (which omits uncertain nodes and is based on the common-innovations method of subgrouping, instead of lexicostatistics, of course). -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 22:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course, deciding (without justification internal to the method) that a result is wrong and a secondary, less preferred, result must be right, instead of acknowledging the weaknesses of the method, is arbitrary in the first place, but it is obvious that they didn't like the idea of having revived Out-of-India. I suspect that the reason for the result is that Indo-Iranian is really the only clearly primary Indo-European branch with a great time-depth in the first place. Also, I think that the Saami languages have strong lexical differences, which is why the method weighted them so much more strongly than would be appropriate given that they only form a single branch of Uralic, and one that does not seem to have a greater time-depth than Finnic or Samoyedic. Anyway, new proof that quantitative approaches aren't worth much if the method, data, or interpretation is dubious, and should never be run in "dumb" mode, i. e., without close human expert supervision and guidance. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Could you check this page about "one of the oldest churches in the world"? -- Ghirla -ŃŃŃĐż- 22:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop removing valid referenced material, as you did with your recent edits of 14-16 November 2011â to the
Dagger article. Such edits constitute
vandalism and are
reverted. Please use the discussion page to raise any complaints you have about images in the article and/or suggestions for improvement, and obtain a consensus prior to removing images.
Dellant (
talk)
14:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Here, what's your prob with the "Gallowglass"? These were fighting men from the Isles, Argyll, Galloway and Mann that fought as mercenaries or via kinship in the internecine conflicts in Ireland ' beyond the pale' who settled, or maybe did not, in Gaelic Ireland in the high Medieval and early Modern. What's the beef? Will be reverting your controversial edits, until you come up with an explanation better than 'Warrior clip-art', whatever that means....: Col Ciotach, the Arch Gallowglass would maybe confirm that if you were kicking about before 1647 and playing around with the Ulster chieftains. The North Channel is an easier passage than the English Channel. The Kingdom of Dal Riata, Lord of the Isles, King of Mann, Clan Suibhne and Clan Donald would all attest to that. That pic shows a west Highland warrior in full fig on a tombstone, in the manner that he would like to be remembered, and it is attested that that is that of MacGillespie of Finlaggan. As soon as a GallGaidheal crossed the Northern Channel for hire he was a Gallowglass, no more no less. Brendandh ( talk) 02:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
My problem is not with the fighting men, my problem is with the Wikipedia article, and with editors like you who seem to make it their task to invert the burden of WP:V. You still seem to think that it is ok for you to post any old unreferenced rambling to Wikipedia, and anyone taking issue with that is supposed to prove to you that your material is flawed. It doesn't work like that. Either write proper, referenced encyclopedic content, or else sit back and let people who do work on the pedia on peace. Seriously, how old are you? You have been "contributing" to Wikipedia since 2007 and you still haven't got the point of WP:ENC, how is this even possible? -- dab (đł) 10:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Poor you! A bit of research work. Oh well, I find that kind of fun. I really don't think you understand the idea of irregular mercenary companies in Ulster and the west of Scotland in the 14th to 17th c. There was no record in general of all but the major combatants. That free-use image of Gillespie's tombstone is a prime example of a contemporary view of the fighting man in the Gaelic theatre of operations at that time, and entirely suitable to be used as a descriptive image. Would you suggest a knight of France in the 14thc. looked dissimilar to another one of lowland Scotland, England, Spain etc.? Much the same in the Norse Gael lands. Furthermore in Durer's picture, yep the boys at the back with Lochaber Axes do look like their heidsmen's hindmen, but you wouldn't expect a Highland gentleman to go out without his retinue would you? FYI again, a Gallowglass was a hired or otherwise indentured Scots Highland Daoine Uaisle, with or without his 'tail' of men, in the service of some chieftain in Ireland. When they were off in Europe they were described as other. While one may have had pretendy Zouaves in the US civil war etc. in a place far removed from the origin of the species of that type of soldier, Gallowglass is a name purely based on the language of the land in which they lived and fought. Brendandh ( talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Sargon of Akkad for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Zoeperkoe ( talk) 04:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have bee following this article for quite some time now. These are not trivial respellings in indic scripts. but different names for nakshatras. I am adept in 3 indian languages and know the difference between their calendars, months and nakshatras. Please see Malayalam Calendar, Tamil Calendar etc for your reference. Also I would reuqest you to use the discussion page before deletion of any content. â Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigA ( talk âą contribs) 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
you are referring to this. It would be nice of you to give the diff, especially in the case of edits of months ago.
I grant you that the names were trivial respellings only in some cases. They were non-trivial but completely unreferenced in the others. If you want to, say, state that Ardra is known as Thiruvathirai in Tamil and as Đ„ŃŃŃгОĐč ĐŸŃ ĐžĐœ in Mongolian, you are kindly invited to provide a reference to the effect. -- dab (đł) 10:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is swiss-oriented therefore ss is used instead of Ă. -- SonniWP ( talk) 21:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice to know, I guess. I have never even looked at that article? So why come here and tell me? -- dab (đł) 11:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you think? -- Ghirla -ŃŃŃĐż- 06:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Dieter. Some very odd edits in broken English. Please check when/if you have time. -- Ghirla -ŃŃŃĐż- 11:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Great job, but could you take a look at the links to disambiguation pages? According to the Articles With Multiple Dablinks] you have 28 links in the article. Could you let them point to the right place? Thanks in advance! Night of the Big Wind talk 00:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Zoupan reverted the redirect of Theories on the origin of Croats and added back some fringe views about the Croats being of Iranian origin.-- â ZjarriRrethues â talk 16:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I responded, very late, to your comment on the tentative Ghosts in English-speaking cultures article that I started a while ago but have hesitated to expand. Maybe you could reply at Talk:Ghost#Ghosts in English-speaking cultures. I am genuinely undecided. On the one hand, giving the English-speakers their own article would be unbiased and symmetrical, and there are plenty of sources ... on the other hand, it could be impossible to prevent forking... Aymatth2 ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree this is difficult no matter how you look at it. But I do feel strongly that treating "English speakers" as a group is about as spectacularly misguided as you can go. Of course, in a first approximation, "English speakers" are the British and their immediate cousins overseas, say, North Americans and Australians. That may still make a certain amount of sense up to 1930 or so. From that time, US pop culture completely upsets this division. For any topic that has a scope extending on either side of the 1930s, you should not assume that "English speakers" even in this limited sense is in any way a meaningful division.
As soon as you include in "English speakers" those parts of the Anglosphere which are not dominated by British-derived culture, viz. South Asian, Caribbean and Sub-Saharan African cultures, any vestigial cultural unity of the term breaks down completely. -- dab (đł) 10:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that your mileage may vary, these are matters of opinion. As long as our bias reflect the bias in English-language scholarly literature, this is just as it should be. Wikipedia doesn't fix biases, it reflects biases. We are happy just as long as we don't introduce any new biases. If a bias is already out there, we just duplicate it. You are basically saying you want more material on obscure cultures. To this, I shrug and say, well, write it. As long as it isn't written, there is no reason for any splits. Once you have written it, we can reassess the situation. -- dab (đł) 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed several broken links because the online version of EncyclopĂŠdia Iranica has moved from iranica.com (which flatly states "this domain has expired") to iranicaonline.org some time ago. I fixed some of those I noticed, but there have to be hundreds of links to iranica.com on Wikipedia still. Is there a way to find and update them (semi-)automatically? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 19:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Your input is needed regarding a user who insists on inserting a table which includes many very dubious etymologies, ringing all Turkish nationalism bells. Problem: The entries are cited, and I can't prove that his sources are BS. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Word | Scythian Word | Source | Interpretation | Derived from | Source/Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
anira | anira | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to repair | Turkish tamir, to repair | A. Chay 2002, 155 [2] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Iranian ab, water | Hermann Parzinger 2004, 78 [3] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Turkish Yer-Sub, earth godess (Yerâ>earth; Subâ>water) | Ocak 2002 [4]; Haussig 1999, 213 [5] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | Pra-Mother | Turkish Api/Apai, mother | G.Dremin, 2006 [6] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Turkish Ebi, livebearing mother/ancestor (fertility) | Zakiev, 1986, 27 [7] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Turkish Abiasch, rain spirit (spiritual character) | Ărmin VĂĄmbĂ©ry 1885, 119 [8] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Turkish Abis, rain evocator/to summon rain (shaman) | Ărmin VĂĄmbĂ©ry 1885, 119 [9] |
Arar | Arar | Herodot, Hist. 4.48 | river | Turkish aryk, flowing waters (stream) | G.Dremin, 2006 [10] |
Arimaspoi | arima | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | one | - | |
Arimaspoi | arima | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | â | Turkish yarım, half | Latyshev 1947, 307 [11] |
Arimaspoi | aspoi? | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | â | Turkish sepi, eye | Latyshev 1947, 307 [12] |
Arimaspoi | spu | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | â | Turkish spu, eye | G.Dremin, 2006 [13] |
Arimaspoi | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | one-eyed | Mongolian Ă€rĂ€m dĂ€k, one-eyed | Laufer 1908, 452; Vermeer 1996, 114 [14] |
Arimaspoi | Arimaspoi | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | mountaineer | Mongolian mountaineer | Neumann 1856, 177 [15]; New Year booking for Philology and Pedagogy 1858, 336 [16] |
Arimaspoi | Arimaspoi | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | â | Iranian aspa, horse | Tomaschek 1888, 761 [17] |
Arimaspoi | Arimaspoi | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | one-eyed horseman | Turkish spu/sepi âeyeâ und iranian aspa âhorseâ | Phillips 1955, 173-174. |
Arimaspoi | spu | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | eye | â | |
Arpoxai, Kolaxai, Lipoxai | â | â | â | Iranian xĆĄÄy, to reign | ? |
Arpoksai, Kolaksai, Lipoksai | â | â | â | Turkish soy, clan/ancestry | Gasanov 2002, 210 [18] |
Arpoksai | Arpok | â | â | Turkish ArpaÄ, priest; or Arpalyk, landowner | Gasanov 2002, 210 [19] |
arta | arta | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to sit | Turkish otur, to sit | A. Chay 2002, 155 [20] |
Aschy | Aschy | Herodot, Hist. 4.23 | juice of a tree fruit | Bashkir akhsha/aschi, juice of a tree fruit | Karl Friedrich Merleker 1841, 14 (-> the way of handling the fruit is identical) [21] |
daldu | daldu | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to fill | Turkish doldur, to fill | A. Chay 2002, 155 [22] |
enarei | enarei | Ibis, 4, 67 | womanlike man | Iranian a, without | Abaev 1949 [23] |
enarei | enarei | Ibis, 4, 67 | womanlike man | Iranian nar, man | Abaev 1949 [24] |
enarei | enarei | Ibis, 4, 67 | womanlike man | Turkish anair, virago | Latyshev 1893, 63 [25] |
enarei | enarei | Ibis, 4, 67 | castrated | Turkish enar, to castrate/to lose his manhood | G.Dremin, 2006 [26] |
gik | gik | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | sky | Turkish gök, sky | A. Chay 2002, 155 [27] |
irchigi | irchigi | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to increase | Turkish choÄal, to increase | A. Chay 2002, 155 [28] |
Kolaksai | Kolak | â | â | Turkish Kola, Bronze; or kylych, sword | Gasanov 2002, 216 [29] |
kutta | kutta | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to add | Turkish kat, to add | A. Chay 2002, 155 [30] |
kyrbasia | kyrbasia | Herodot, Hist. 7.64 | acuate headdress | Turkish kur/koy, to straighten up/to put; and baĆ/baĆa, head/to the head | Mlasowsky 2006, 33 [31] |
Lipoksai | Lipok | â | â | Turkish Alp, miraculous patron | Gasanov 2002, 204 [32] (Lipoksai is also known as Afrasiab and as the son of Tur in the iranian mythology) |
Oiorpata | Oiorpata | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | man killer | ||
Oiorpata | oior | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | man | Turkish er, man | G.Dremin, 2006 [33] |
Oiorpata | pata | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | to kill/beat | Turkish patak, to kill/beat | Karl Steuerwald 1974, 268 [34] |
Oiorpata | pata | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | to kill/beat | Turkish bat, to kill/beat | G.Dremin, 2006 [35] |
Oiorpata | oior | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | to beat | general Romance battre, to beat | G.Dremin, 2006 [36] |
Oiorpata | oior | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | man | Iranian vira, man | ? |
sagaris | sagar | Herodot, Hist. 7.64 | battle axe | Mordwinian sĂŒgĂ€, axe | Albrecht Wirth 1905, 184 [37] |
Targitai | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.5 | â | Targit, Turkish-Mongolian name | Karatay 2003, 161 [38] |
Targitai | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.5 | â | Tarkutay, Mongolian chieftain | Karatay 2003, 161 [39] |
Targitai | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.5 | â | Iranian darga , long | Abaev 1949, 163 [40] |
Targitai | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.5 | â | Iranian tava , strength | Abaev 1949, 163 [41] |
Traspier | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.6 | â | Iranian aspa , horse | Hermann Parzinger 2004, 78 [42] |
val | val | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | way | Turkish yol, way | A. Chay 2002, 155 [43] |
vita | vita | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | opposite | English opposite , opposite | A. Chay 2002, 155 [44] |
vurun | vurun | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to chop | Turkish vuruĆ, to chop | A. Chay 2002, 155 [45] |
why was the above posted to my talkpage? If you keep the decent references and get rid of the "Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks" garbage, we can talk about it, but don't post this stuff to talkpages, just give me the diff if you want to point to deleted material. -- dab (đł) 07:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The article Ancient Dravidian culture article looks like a piece of garbage written by some tamil nationalist.there is nothing ancient about it everything is contemporary.there also lot of peacock terms and pov.the first line of article itself is un wikipedia like.i saw your comments on the article talk page.what can be done about the article. Pernoctator ( talk) 06:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Tell me about it. What can be done? The thing should be merged, e.g. into Sangam period. -- dab (đł) 07:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
agree.merge.and how do we do that?.considering the article is mostly garbage.i am cleaning a lot of indian ethnic group articles at the moment. Pernoctator ( talk) 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have commented on this at great length on the artilce talkpage. The article is trash, and it is trash with an agenda, basically the worst kind of content that can be submitted to Wikipedia. People refuse to fix it. The burden is on them to fix it. As long as they refuse, the page can just be redirected.
Also, the redirect "Ancient Dravidian culture" should be put up for discussion, as is is unclear whether the term has any kind of generally agreed-upon, idetifiable meaning or definition. The burden of proving that this term exists and has an identifiable meaning lies entirely with those who wish to keep such a page. Nobody disputes that an ancient Dravidian culture exists. The words "ancient" and "Dravidian" are here used compositionally as adjectives modifiying "culture". We do not create pages on random combinations of adjectives and nouns. The article on this culture also exists, it is found at Sangam period. -- dab (đł) 10:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
ok redirecting the page right now to Sangam period.i am also going through some of the other trash oops articles these people have created.thanks for you thoughts. Pernoctator ( talk) 11:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
just saw you have already redirected.great.cheers. Pernoctator ( talk) 11:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I expect the pov pushers will come back and prefer a page full of garbage and content warning tags over a redirect. But if you want to help, you can spend some time on the chore of letting them know in no uncertain terms that the burden lies on them to produce decent material. Nobody has any business to restore content that is garbage, or indeed even brillant content that is unreferenced. You restore it, you take the responsibility to fix it. -- dab (đł) 12:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
yes sir on guard gainst pov pushers. Pernoctator ( talk) 12:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen the recent comments at Talk:Aram (biblical region)? Dougweller ( talk) 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dbachmann,
My name is Jonathan Obar
user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community
HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 02:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Had I thought of it before, I would have given you a notification of this discussion while it was still open, since it's an area you've expressed concern about. But I didn'tâbut thought you still might want to read the discussion. Good Olâfactory (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
look, I've given up on telling you why I think some of your actions are misguided. You collect "insults" on your user page as if it was somehow to your credit that you exasperate people. I do not go around randomly insulting people, but I believe in WP:SPADE. I have no exaggerated dread of your power or the damage you can do. But I can see you do damage in a small but consistent way. I have told you as much. You listed it in your gallery of insults, so you are clearly proud of the attention you get for doing damage. In such situations, I tend to drop the topic and focus on other corners of Wikipedia. Yeah, I have a lot of time I choose to invest here, but it is not unlimited, and when I begin to feel my time is spent on petty online disputes I tend to decide it is worth more than that. -- dab (đł) 08:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi On 18 Nov., you have tagged Ancient settlements in Turkey for Synthesis. Frankly I haven't seen your point. This is a list and not a text. No opinion is stated and the list solely depends on sourced Wikipedia articles. I think the tag is irrevelant. Cheers. Nedim ArdoÄa ( talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The relevant section can be found here Cheers, Lindsay Hello 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I confirmed the material originally written on the Jyotish page in the History section. It is correct. Please don't remove the material, or add uncited/unreliable content. AssociateLong ( talk) 00:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
um what, you "confirmed the material"? And this somehow excuses you from WP:CITE? -- dab (đł) 16:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AssociateLong ( talk) 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Since you did such a great job turning the de-disambiguated Broadsword into a fine article at Basket-hilted sword, how would you like to - wait for it - take a stab at doing the same for Great sword? â Preceding unsigned comment added by BD2412 ( talk âą contribs)
I am not sure I am too happy with this approach... I believe it turns out the case is not really parallel to "broadsword", but I may be wrong.
It turns out that the spelling as a single word, greatsword arises in the 1930s [1]. Before that, of course you find lots of instances of "a great sword", back to Revelations 6:4 (gladius magnus). The term broadsword is easily a century older [2], the hyphenated broad-sword even earlier [3] [4].
My point is that "broad-sword" was a real term back in a time where swords were still in use (if only for gentlemen's duels), but "greatsword" dates to the era of Errol Flynn. The terms "broadsword" and " basket-hilted sword" coincide almost perfectly, with only the very earliest examples (16th century) having no basket-hilt, so that they can easily be treated as a stage in the development of the type. A "great sword" can basically be any sword which is "great". -- dab (đł) 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts -- imho this could be merged with the Types of swords article, which is little more than a naked list of articles. -- dab (đł) 08:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
FYI, your redirect was reverted by an IP editor. Frietjes ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Answered on my talk page. -- Ecelan ( talk) 19:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I've inserted your changes in the right section.-- Tirgil34 ( talk) 21:06, 13. March 2012 (CET) âPreceding undated comment added 20:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC).
Hi Dbachmann, I noticed that quite a while ago you changed {{ Polytonic}} from invoking a specific style declaration regarding font-families to simply transcluding the regular lang template with grc defined. Does this mean that {{lang|grc|word}} is now identical to the polytonic template? And does this also mean that {{lang-grc|word}} is now technically identical to the polytonic template, save for the fact it would also give " Ancient Greek:"? We have a guideline that still recommends {{ Polytonic}}, though confusingly alongside a recommendation for using {{lang|grc|word}}. I assume that this dual recommendation stems from the days when polytonic forced fonts that were know to be capable of displaying complex diacritics. Thank you, â cardiff | chestnut â 22:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is my understaniding that {{ polytonic}} dates from a time when Unicode was new and problematic. No recent system should have any problem displaying polytonic Greek, and it is enough to just use {{ lang}} to mark the language as 'grc'. The recommendation for using {{ polytonic}} in my view is obsolete, but as long as it is just an alias of {{lang|grc|}}, no harm is done. -- dab (đł) 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Please check this link because we have one serious issue. User Tirgil34 (known for pseudohistoric claims at Scythian languages) along with Maikolaser (most likely his sockpuppet) have started aggressive Turanist agenda not just on English Wikipedia but also all others, even Commons. There are two issues:
I've contacted Dougweller regarding to this issue also. Cheers, mr. O. -- 217.24.133.219 ( talk) 02:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Tirgil34 has a long history of pushing Turanist nonsense. So please ban them already, they have had their fair chance to edit responsibly. If Tigril34 is a German, I must assume he (hardly "she") is not just a German so much as a "German", or else I would be at a loss to explain the obsession with Pan-Turkism. A German would hardly declare he is a Defender of the good old German Neutrality. Tigril34 is just adding insult to injury by taking the piss out of his host nation.
This doesn't go to say that matters stand better in the Persian nationalist camp, these guys form a regular wikimafia and their own nationalist nonsense for some reason cannot be touched or they make mincemeat of you. So far we have been able to deal with the Turanist trolls more or less efficiently. One kind of misbehaviour does not excuse another, but if you look at the Cyrus cylinder fuckfest, you will agree that Wikipedia has more pressing problems with the Persian cranks than with the Turkish ones. -- dab (đł) 11:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
We are still too lenient with this type of editor. It has always been crystal clear that Tirgil34 is not editing constructively, or in the interest of the project. Hence he should have been warned in no uncertain terms, and then banned. But we are getting there. By comparison to the drawn-out dramas of the past over such editors, this has been comparatively painless. -- dab (đł) 09:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:Homer infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
10:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you please assure the fine people at Talk:Subartu that, despite what some supposedly reliable sources (it's sad that this kind of crackpot idea can be published and given the appearance of a respected academic position) might say, there are no modern Kurdish tribes with an identifiable history precisely in their current location going back to the days of Sargon of Akkad? Quick, before Izady's claim is discovered by more Kurds and spreads further through Wikipedia. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Here we go again; another Kurdish lad with Izady as "holy encyclopaedia" - named Gomada ( contributions). He's forcing Gutian languageâ among "Kurdish history" category, Buyids, Ziyarids, Sallarids as Dailamites are "Kurdish", and Badi' al-Zaman al-Hamadani (labeled Arabic even by Iranica) is "Kurd", etc. Greetings, Mr. O. -- 46.239.25.119 ( talk) 11:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Gomada, what the hell does any of this have to do with Subartu? How is the plight of the Kurdish people related to some Sumerian toponym? You are welcome to campaign for whatever political views you may have, just don't do it on Wikipedia. -- dab (đł) 17:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at [9]. Alefbe ( talk) 21:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
well, some kind admin should save us the bother and block this one, as he is clearly not even remotely interested in working on the pedia. I really have no wish to waste breath pretending to "AGF" on cases as obvious as this one. -- dab (đł) 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Changing a redirect into a non-redirect so that you can prod it is not appropriate. Please do not do that again. I personally think the redirect probably should be deleted, but since I don't know any of the details about the subject, I don't want to nominate it at RFD myself. It really wouldn't take much longer to start a discussion at WP:RFD than it would to add the prod tag back, and it certainly would have a better chance of actually getting it deleted than what you have been doing. Calathan ( talk) 20:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I found a mistake. I fixed it. Then you jump out of the woodwork and waste my time over nothing. No sir, what you are doing is "inappropriate". If you do not know anything about the subject, why do you take it upon yourself to redirect Pope John Paul III to Antipope? Present a reference on an antipope of that name. You don't have one? Then please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. It is vandalism to create nonsensical redirects. Yes, it is even vandalism when you are restoring vandalism after other people who actually know what they are doing have fixed it. -- dab (đł) 21:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
no, you do not understand that actively restoring vandalism counts as vandalism. Fine, remove the prod tag if you must, but do not restore the vandalised revision of the page. I am taking the painful approach here in order to impress on you that what you are doing is stupid. Therefore, I suppose, I should not be surprised to find that you fail to understand why it is stupid. I do have a delete button, and I could just have deleted this pointless redirect as a completely uncontroversial act of cleanup. What I am trying to do here is to get you to understand that the rules are here to serve the pedia, and not the other way round. I suppose this goes far above your head, so yeah, do "report" me for violating templat syntax and red tape and what have you, anything to keep you from touching article namespace where the grown-ups are trying to build an encyclopedia. -- dab (đł) 08:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the first thing you need to do is to learn distinguish non-negotiable policy (such as WP:CITE, WP:NPOV), from guidelines of project-internal good practice (such as "the prod template should not be used on pages that are at that moment redirects"). There is a fundamental difference. The point of this exercise was to impress this difference on you. But I think we can drop this now, as anything that hasn't been learned from it so far isn't going to happen now as we devolve into acrimony. I think we have got as much WP:LAME out of this as has been in it, so peace. -- dab (đł) 05:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Since you have a deep knowledge and interest in ancient history, would you please have a look at discussions we have at Nagorno-Karabakh? We need a third opinion from uninvolved editors, so your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Grand master 20:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I do have an interest in ancient history, but I have been dealing with puerile nationalists abusing ancient history to make themselves feel better about their ingroup since 2004, so I am just a little tired of the exercise. -- dab (đł) 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"Which I hoped you were going to acquire over time, as you said you started to take university courses, but so far I cannot see it has done much with your misplaced hyperbole" [12]. Excuse me? I suggest you start explaining on what grounds you've produced this fantasy personal information about me before I take the next step with this. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
hello, after researching your edits you seem to have very good understanding of the subject as there is an ongoing dispute whenever to describe the swedes as germanic just as the germans article so i therefore invite you to join the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swedesdiscussion and possibly settle this once for all, thanks 220.136.0.45 ( talk) 17:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dab, what say you about the infobox that has apparently established itself in that article? Best, Trigaranus ( talk) 13:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dbachmann, this is me robin klein, The former page Syrian Malabar Nasrani has now been remaned as Saint Thomas Christians. There is a contention now at the page. The contention is about a single line which states about the probable Jewish origin of the Syrian Malabar Nasranis or Saint Thomas Christians. There has been a long discussion and a lot of quote from lots of reliable sources have been provided at the talk page [ [13]]. A solution is not impossible but certain administrators are adament and refuse to include the mention of probable Jewish descent of the Nasranis or Saint Thomas Christians. Please help with this situation. It seems unfair when administrators come together to prevent anybody else from adding new information. And whatever the conflict, a fair solution is always possible. But here the editors with admin status are not willing to listen to anyone and state that without their consensus no changes could be made. Please help. thanks Robin klein ( talk) 05:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I happened across the article on Charles today and noted your comment on the List of Notable Charleses on the talk page. I agree with your sentiment that this is a nonsense, and was tempted to delete the section in its entirety. But then I noticed that you had appeared to try to tidy it up (or rationalise it) and I didn't want to be too hasty. So I thought I'd come here first. I can't see what purpose it serves and how it can ever be encyclopedic (and hence I'd still be inclined to jettison it): but maybe you have different views. Kind regards. Johnlp ( talk) 22:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The article BhÄratas has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Sandeep (
talk)
09:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Tinynanorobots has proposed merging Types of swords into classification of swords. This being your area, I'd appreciate your view on this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ragnarok (Norwegian band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnarok (Norwegian band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. __ meco ( talk) 12:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Swords by era, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Picture interpretation an editor has a question about one of your images. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 08:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Your split proposal at Knight has gained some comment. Would you like to say what you had in mind?-- Monstrelet ( talk) 08:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
In view of your contributions at Nuwaubian Nation, [14] and that Yamassee native americans redirects there, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamassee/Yamassee native americans. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 04:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Polytonic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historical urban community sizes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical urban community sizes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shii (tock) 04:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I saw that you were still active on that page, so I think I can ask you:
I'm trying to verify the spelling, in Sanskrit of the term "Rowdree Darpana" that appears on p23 of the Shastra (in the Josyer translation). It is claimed as meaning "Terrifying Mirror".
The scans of the Sanskrit portions on the Sacred Text Archive only go up to p 10, so I can't verify it using that. However, based on the claimed meaning and the pronunciation, I believe that the Sanskrit should be à€°à„à€Šà„à€°à€żà€Żà€Šà€°à„à€Șà€Ł (rudriya darpaNa, terrifying mirror). I have absolutely no experience with Sanskrit, so I can't be sure if the conjugation is correct.
Would you happen to have a copy of the book to check for me, or failing that, experience in Sanskrit to determine the proper conjugation of the word? If you can help me with this, please leave a message at this page. I've also left a copy of this request on the Vymanika talk page. Thanks! 70.34.147.3 ( talk) 04:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann. Since you dealt with the quotefarm at Name of Azerbaijan, could you please have a look at recent edits to the article Azerbaijan? I think someone is overstating his point by using too many quotes and giving inappropriate weight to the whole name issue. Thanks. Regards, Grand master 20:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
There is now a proposed Manual of style for religion articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. I have some reason to believe that your own expertise in dealing with matters of nationalism might well be of use here, given the large number of groups out there which deal substantially with what might be called ethnoreligions. Any input you might have would be more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 14:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear DBachmann,
just thanks - vielen Dank fĂŒr die Analyse des Zitats "Tradition, Asche und Feuer": Es ist so Ă€rgerlich, die NaivitĂ€t der Leute zu sehen, ĂŒbrigens schon vor dem Internet, z.B. "der Apfel, der Newton auf den Kopf fiel".
Ich habe den Verdacht, ein Ă€hnlicher Fall von Zitat nur im deutschen Sprachraum ist der Spruch mit dem Wind und den Leuten, die Mauern bauen oder WindmĂŒhlen. Oft als "chinesisches Sprichwort" bezeichnet. Gruss WalterH44 â Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterH44 ( talk âą contribs) 16:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you proposed a merger from Yahweh ben Yahweh into Nation of Yahweh, back in Jan 2011. However, you only tagged the target page, not the source, and didn't start a discussion. It doesn't appear to me that merger would be desirable, so I'm removing the proposal. â Fayenatic L ondon 11:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm letting you know that I have undone your edit to The Golden Bough, specifically the removal of the Popular Culture section. I believe that it's removal is premature and pruning would be preferable to complete removal, as many of the references in question are substantial in the works which reference it. I welcome your input. -- Tarage ( talk) 08:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of my edits are justified.
I do make mistakes, but will as a rule fix them if they are only pointed out to me.
But much of my efforts at building decent coverage in more difficult topics have been eroded either by people editing from a perspective of depressing stupidity, or more often from a clearly disingenious agenda, more often than not paired with stupidity of the kind assuming that describing, say, classical Tamil culture, as "CLASSICAL PROTO-WORLD 100'000'000 BCE NOBLE CIVILIZATION" somehow will give the topic more prestige than simply calling it "ancient". I.e. people opening to ridicule their in-group symbols by touting them naively. This has more or less convinced me, over the years, that much of my time here is wasted. I can still recover my own notes to myself from the edit histories, but it is futile to try and keep "the internet" (the depressingly stupid just literate enough to deface the topics they care about the most) from eroding the pedia.
The collaborative idea of investing research into a common pool instead of your own petty publication list has appealed to me very much, but I am now trying to move away from it again and rediscover that I am able to compose my own essays on my own computer, something which I have nearly done without in the years since 2004. -- dab (đł) 08:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello dab, I'm making an assumption that you were the one making the last three edits here - presumably you'd forgotten to sign in. I have reverted them all as none were discussed at all on the relevant article talk pages, which feels to me to be the right way to proceed. I have however removed the cross-in-circle image from one of the templates, I agree it wasn't appropriate. If my assumption was unwarranted I apologise - however the edits were consistent with what I know your views to be so I hope you'll forgive me. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This article looks as if it's going to be under attack by Persian editors again, who want to expunge all references to it being an Arabic work. Keep an eye on it, if you will, as I'm only allowed so many reverts. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 18:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.literature.at/viewer.alo?objid=13200&viewmode=fullscreen&scale=3.33&rotate=&page=1
GrĂŒĂe Alexander Leischner ( talk) 15:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you proposed a merger of BattĆjutsu and Iaido back on Jan 14 2011, more than a year and a half ago. You only tagged the target page, not the source, and didn't start a discussion. I'm removing the proposal. Thanks, Prburley ( talk) 17:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'll repeat it: "Which I hoped you were going to acquire over time, as you said you started to take university courses, but so far I cannot see it has done much with your misplaced hyperbole" [15]. Excuse me? I suggest you start explaining on what grounds you've produced this fantasy personal information about me and why you thought Wikipedia was the venue for it before I take the next step with this. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take a minute to study the edits of guy [16]? He is apparently the resurrection of a user you had some history with, named User:Tirgil34. He has been inserting some fringe nationalist nonsense into a dozen pages, misquoting/falsifying sources [17], and replacing WP:RS material with fringe Turkish nationalist sources. Kurdo777 ( talk) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Please provide a citation for Template:Zodiac date IAU and Template:Zodiac date. Otherwise I intend to propose the templates for deletion. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup on The Odin Brotherhood page. Could you take a look at Germanic neopaganism? A recent editor is spinning the article with racialist slant. Thanks. -- Heathenguy ( talk) 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Urals blank map.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator ( talk) 16:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
When you reverse all of my edits, you keep restoring errors. Harvey is not the author, for example, It is Hardman and Harvey. You also keep restoring in incorrect name of the Odin Brotherhood book! There is no "Prophecy" in the title. Please make one change at a time.
Thanks.
-- Heathenguy ( talk) 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
And, oh, his name is Mirabello, not Miravello. -- Heathenguy ( talk) 07:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, I'll repeat it: "Which I hoped you were going to acquire over time, as you said you started to take university courses, but so far I cannot see it has done much with your misplaced hyperbole" [18]. Excuse me? I suggest you start explaining on what grounds you've produced this fantasy personal information about me and why you thought Wikipedia was the venue for it before I take the next step with this. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
How about ==>>> this  ? ....... tell me please. Ś€ŚŚšŚŚ§ ( talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Would you like to weigh in (even if very briefly) in this RfC on Caste. Your experience on Wikipedia will be very helpful. The RfC link is: Talk:Caste#RfC:_Does_the_article_minimize_the_centrality_of_India_to_the_notion_of_caste.3F
I have invited three other editors and announced my intention to do so here. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tadeusz_Sulimirski_.26_Rahul_Sankrityayan â 117.207.62.240 ( talk) 09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, I've just added 'PolyLine' support into my perlshaper mapping script. Feel free to give it a whirl and give me any suggestions you may have. It now assumes than any 'PolyLine' shape is a river, colouring it the same as the 'coastline' colour (I added a 'river' style). For NE data, it will consider the 'region name' to be the name of the river. This means that the river name will show up in the id tag of the surrounding group of the river(s). gringer ( talk) 13:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, but I am creating a separate Akan people history article, upon the WikiProject Akan. The Akan also have nothing to do with the first Ivorian war, they are about 8 million in Ivory Coast and are farmers and peaceful there. In Ghana there are more Akans than in Ivory Coast. The Akans in Ivory Coast migrated there many centuries ago. MarkMysoe ( talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Your obvious editorialising makes me wonder whether you are the right person to write " a separate Akan people history article". Do you have any sort of personal stakes or bias in the topic? Or is your interest merely encyclopedic and academic? -- dab (đł) 06:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I "insulted the intelligence" of MarkMysoe by asking to follow the rules. That's what you get for "assuming good faith". I take this to mean that MarkMysoe says he knows perfectly well he is disregarding the rules, and it is "insulting" to pretend his behaviour is due to lack of intelligence rather than ill will. The only course here, of course, to take the conscious and "intelligent" attacks on project integrity on the part of MarkMysoe at face value from now on. -- dab (đł) 10:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Sulung is mentioned in Blench (2011) and in one of Matisoff's papers, so it's pretty certain that this is a language that deserves an article.
And you're right about Ethnologue not being gospel, and not to create too many stubs from it. Most of them were actually started up by User:kwamikagami. â Stevey7788 ( talk) 14:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zalmoxis Aleksandrovo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Magog the Ogre ( t âą c) 18:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you noticed. Drmies ( talk) 14:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This was semi'd some time ago and I we just received a note ( OTRS/ 2012100410002289 from somebody trying to edit it. Could unprotection be considered? Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you would bother to honour the request of somebody who went to the trouble of submitting a "ticket" rather than simply creating an account and begin to edit and learn about the project just like everyone else. "I refuse to register an account, so I am going through the process of submitting a formal request to Wikimedia instead", yeah, this sounds like a promising contributor. Semiprotection is no obstacle at all to anyone who intends to invest any time at all in developing an article. The only bona-fide edits prevented by semiprotection are casual fixes on things like spelling and punctuation. In cases such as Mahabharata, the benefits of such casual fixes are vastly, by several orders of magnitude, outweighed by casual vandalism and ill-advised deterioration. -- dab (đł) 10:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, last year you started a discussion in Talk:Three Yogas which had no following. I am taking this discussion one step ahead in the hope of a more encyclopedic article. I think this article should mention the issue you brought up. If you are still interested can you help me find a solution? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I am also confused about the redirected title Four Yogas (Hinduism). I can't find its edit history. Did you create it as a redirect? Hoverfish Talk 16:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, I just wanted to let you know I made an addition to a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans#1990-present which you have semi-protected. I wanted to see if you deem my addition sufficient or if you think it belongs elsewhere. Cheers, ( Timothysandole ( talk) 14:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
it's alright, you don't have to notify me, you are perfectly within your rights to do with the page as you see fit, it is just semi-protected to keep out drive-by editing. This doesn't affect your ability or your rights to edit in the least. -- dab (đł) 05:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Me ineptum?
I have re-worded the text to reflect that the translation is directly from the Greek text. I have tried, but was unable, to find the original Greek text of Eusebius to ascertain whether or not the word ΀οÏÏáżł alone is to be found, and therefore reference to "sign" constitutes a later accretion. The recent translation would suggest that the wording of the original 'celestial label', as it was directly attached to the sign itself, did not contain the word "sign" as such.
I am sure that you have noticed that I have in no instance removed or altered the 'traditional' wording of the Latin or its literal translation into English within the text. I am also sure that you recognise the appropriateness, in an encyclopedic context, of having an additional translation that is both from the original text and is framed in plain English. Always remember protege tuam pugam. Urselius ( talk) 09:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
z. K.. GrĂŒsse -- KurtR ( talk) 19:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Some of Armenia-related articles continue to be vandalized by some anti-Armenia-style users. Check out edits history of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Maybe you should permanently semi-block this article similar to the History of Armenia template. àŒ ( talk) 06:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dbachmann.
I see that you have made some comments in relation to the above article, comments which I think are relevant to the situation at hand, so I am contacting you to request any input you may be able to contribute.
The situation at hand is that I made what I felt were some basic edits, and they were repeatedly deleted by a contributor, even after I made an adjustment.
I am basically new to this scenario, so I hadn't been aware of the Talk page, etc. At any rate, I have been reading the talk page, and the content of my edit had already been largely addressed by other contributors, including yourself.
So, since I am tackling the deplorable state of the article in question and intend to do a significant edit, I would like to try and build a little consensus, and the more the merrier in the that process!
I would appreciate it if you could take the time to read through the recent entries on the Talk page and participate in the course of events leading to as substantial an edit as possible.
Thanks. Ubikwit ( talk) 16:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
I assume you mean this edit? This seems to be mostly about phrasing, as in "belief" vs. "hypothesis" and so on, and thus it isn't so much a content dispute as a sort of trial-and-error process towards optimal presentation of content. I see that Itsmejudith has also contributed towards a compromise.
Also, regarding
I must say I agree with the deletion of this. Not because it isn't true but because it is ridiculous. It is possible to state facts in a way to make them ridiculous.
Come on, "critics" of British Israelism? That's a bit like talking of "critics" of Biblical literalism. This kind of eccentric fringe belief isn't really open to "criticism", at least not in any reasonable sense of the word. People who are into this stuff do not have any concept of "criticism" to begin with, so it is really pointless to pretend this is something that can or should be "critiziced". I mean, it would be also true to state that the existence of Santa Claus can be doubted on genetic, medical, linguistic and archaeological grounds, but it would still be silly to insert a paragraph into the Santa Claus article discussing how "critics" have applied these fields to make their case that the supposed forest-dwelling gift-bringer is not in fact the undead version of an ancient bishop of Asia Minor, even though it would be perfectly, ahem, justified to make such a case. -- dab (đł) 08:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
A new editor has created Gathering hypothesis and heavily edited Hunting hypothesis. They both need work. Dougweller ( talk) 18:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Dbachmann, if you have time, do you think you could create a new map for File:Religion distribution.png using the source you pointed out? The current/earliest ones are all very inaccurate. - M0rphzone ( talk) 08:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, we're currently discussing whether to merge the Ancient Thebes (Boeotia) article you created into the Thebes, Greece article. Markussep Talk 14:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Any comment on this? Note there is a current RfC/U on the editor who turned your redirect into an article. Dougweller ( talk) 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, I have left a message regarding Wuffa of East Anglia on its talk page. Hel-hama ( talk) 20:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I know you're already bored by this subject but please check out this edits (removing Briant-Kuhrt as source). -- 109.165.241.212 ( talk) 07:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope the same, but as you rightly said, I am extremely bored with this. I happen to thing that the endless Azeri vs. Persian nationalists turf war on Wikipedia is disgraceful and an imposition of the patience and the resources of the community. I really wish these people would take their grievances elsewhere. I known this isn't going to happen any time soon, so when questioned I just tend to express my disgust with these editors and leave it at that. -- dab (đł) 11:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paul_Bedson you made a fairly lengthy comment in your endorsement to the view from Mangoe. It's usually best to keep an endorsement short -- many editors just list their name with no additional words -- and to place comments like this in a "view by" section. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You have my permission to move the comment if you like. In fact you also have my permission to collapse it into a diff link, or hide it in a collapsible box, whatever you feel makes the page more tidy. -- dab (đł) 11:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Difficulty of learning languages is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Difficulty of learning languages until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The ChampionMan 1234 02:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Great to see you active again. I'm confused by an old edit of yours. Can you explain what exactly is dubious here? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 04:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I reverted an edit which introduced blatant nonsense, and by reverting to the earlier revision, I noted that some claims which had been in there were themselves doubtful, or at least unreferenced. I think it is possible there is a 14th century RV manuscript, but I cannot vouch for it. Likewise, it is possible that the printing press was introduced to India in the 16th century, but I find the claim dubious. The burden of establishing such things as factual would lie with the people making them. Also, even if there was a printing press in 16th-century India, it would have been introduced by the Mughals, and it would certainly not have been used to print Vedic texts. I think the sentence is just a vandalized version of something I had written, that with the introduction of the printing press by the British in the 19th century, it also became possible to print the RV. It was printed, by MĂŒller, in the 19th century. Whether there had been a printing press used by the Muslim rulers during earlier times is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article.
I have learned to be extremely skeptical of every minute change to this article. It seems that it is a favourite target of certain people, I must assume Indians, or at least Americans who identify as expatriate Indians, who do not have the first clue about the topic and simply fiddle with a few numbers as they see fit. The result is a misleading article, because the prose still radiates authority (because it was written by people who knew about the topic) but still wrong (because the figures have been messed with). -- dab (đł) 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you please have your say in the split discussion about Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples created by you ? In case of split can you start the issued article ? Happy new year. Nedim ArdoÄa ( talk) 10:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I rv'd your changes to Luo languages. The Ethn. list is completely messed up: half of those aren't even Nilotic languages. â kwami ( talk) 21:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
yeah ok, I admit that SIL was my only guide in this. You know what you are doing, I hope. -- dab (đł) 14:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dbachmann,
Is there are verification/source as to what is said in Wikipedia artice "Apris" is true? I would like to use the name for something big...
Thanks, Tamir. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.213.214 ( talk) 21:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It's basically what's in Monier-Williams. The source is Sayana. I didn't check the details. -- dab (đł) 10:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I did some quick research. The existence of 12 Apris is mentioned by Sayana, in the late 14th century. The enumeration of 10 Aprisuktas is due to Gargya Narayana, with roughly the same date as Sayana. The existence of various Apris for various schools (but no fixed number) is mentioned earlier, already in shrauta-sutra literature. I assume that they aren't saying that there are exactly 12, or 10, Apris or Aprisuktas. They are saying that each gotra could basically pick their own. I assume this was like a bit like a "tartan", a clan symbol which developed in the final centuries BCE with the emergence of the early Hindu gotra system. If you had a gotra, you could go and pick a hymn to Agni as your own Aprisukta. -- dab (đł) 11:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, Tamir, before you use the name "Apris" for "something big" (like a company name? or just a tattoo?) just try to talk somebody who knows about this. Be aware that "Apris" is just the anglicized plural. The Sanskrit plural is Äpryas, from an older (Vedic) Äpriyas. -- dab (đł) 12:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Your comments would be useful at WP:RSN#Conference presentation as source in article on Ayurveda. I also note that Ratha, an article you edited, now has some very pov language in it. And sources without page numbers - not sure if you have any of the sources. Dougweller ( talk) 08:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Claims about an age of 10000 years of the Vedas do not need to be discussed because they are in no way serious. You can argue about Bronze Age dates, as the Vedas hark back to the Bronze age (although the bulk dates to hte Iron Age). Arguing a Neolithic date is out of the question. Arguing a Mesolithic or Paleolithic date is simply bizarre, you could as well argue it was two billion years old for all the difference it would make to the sanity of the claim. People come up with stupid shit all the time, and it cannot be our responsiblity to react it all. Randy in Boise. -- dab (đł) 09:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Law of One is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. InShaneee ( talk) 03:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It is clear from your recent involvement with Kouroukan Fouga that you have a strong personal opinion against the authenticty of the document, and that you express distaste that any Subsaharan ruler such as Sundiata Keita could establish a supreme law or constitution as long ago as 1236 and be preserved by griots. Not surprisingly, an anonymous IP soon reverted to the previous version (which is actually not at all a copyvio as you claim) before you had turned it upside-down, per BRD. I am very disappointed to see where you then responded by resorting to your admin toolbox, and locked the page on your POV version. I thought at least this should have been performed by an uninvolved admin. Other admins do not even do this, what gives you the right to? Let us all please improve the article with due process. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 16:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
so you admit you were the anonymous editor? Or how are you suggesting semiprotection "locked" the version? And what "pov"? The removal of blatant copyright violation? Or how is the verbatim reproduction of two pages of English text published in 2004 (or 1998) not a copyvio? Care to explain that? I know you tend to be working against the project goals, but this is going a little bit far in terms of admitting to your agenda, don't you think? -- dab (đł) 06:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
A personal dispute with an IP adress? Over what? Over whether it is ok to vandalise Wikipedia?
Ok, if you like, I used semiprotection to "resolve" a "personal dispute" with an IP adress over the question whether they should vandalize Wikipedia. This is exactly what the protection tool is for in the first place. Are you happy now? Then please leave me alone. Yes, complain to ANI over my reluctance to allow vandalism and copyright violation, I am sure this will be the next great wikiscandal. -- dab (đł) 14:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I like the thrust of your The Law of One improvements and made a comment here Talk:The_Law_of_One#Changes_by_Dbachmann. Your insults hurt my feelings but I recognize the merit of your edits that I never got to see because they were reverted. Bilbobagginsesprecious ( talk) 17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean to insult you. I seriously did not believe it possible that you were serious about suggesting your article for inclusion. For all in the world it looked like you were making fun of Wikipedia. If you are serious about editing, perhaps you should practice with uncontroversial articles, such as neglected articles on minor settlements. There is no way that "The Law of One" is going to be accepted and left alone in its current state. It will either be deleted or else radically cut down in content and scope. "The Law of One" is only of interest inasmuch it contributed to some notable effect such as the "2012 phenomenon" hysteria. As such, it can easily be treated briefly in a paragraph in another article. If you want to keep a standalone article on this thing, you'll need to tread more carefully. -- dab (đł) 09:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems I misinterpreted your edits on The Law of One. My apologies. -- Neoconfederate ( talk) 19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I am not sure what you mean, but in any case I am done with the topic, I decided it was not worth my time fighting over properly representing a cranky topic such as this. I need to learn to be more relaxed about Wikipedia containing crap in content areas that do not a lot of damage and focus on fixing the more urgent problems first. -- dab (đł) 09:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I see you asked: "Why a secret society would need a promotional website is anyone's guess."
I think this man might have the answer:
"What's the point of being the world's top secret agent if you can't tell anyone?"
(I've not been paying much attention to Wikipedia recently, but I checked out your contributions yesterday and that comment of yours was the funniest thing I've read round here for quite some time).
Cheers,
-- Folantin ( talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Dbachmann. Do you believe the site is a megalithic observatory? -- Ghirla -ŃŃŃĐż- 12:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea. Possibly? To be treated with reservation, as the Bosnian pyramids teach us, people in this region are very easily enthused about their prehistory? The UNESCO "World Heritage Site" may confer notability, but certainly not credibility. It is a disgrace how this organization lets itself be abused for nationalist political games. They will just put stuff on their lists if they realize people would really like to be on that list. -- dab (đł) 12:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I figured out the original publications now. I am not saying they are wrong, or this isn't an observatory. I am just saying I have learned to be very suspicious when local patriots discover something like that, and after ten years, there are still exactly two men who are excited by it and keep publishing stuff about "Ancient Secrets". -- dab (đł) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
More on Mr. Cenev, based on the photographs in this document I must say I am not sure if the entire thing isn't an elaborate Rorschach test. But what really makes me wonder about the qualifications of this Gorje Cenev is the description of the "coordinates of the markers" for summer solstice at Kokino and Stonehenge:
Stonehenge | Kokino | 2000 BC |
23,9° | 23,9° | 23,9° |
What on earth does this even mean? What is the "coordinate" of solstice? Does he mean the compass direction of the sunrise? But why "2000 BC"? Does he think that the direction of sunrise depends on the astronomical epoch? It does not, it depends on your geographical latitude. On the polar circle, the direction of sunrise on summer solstice is 0°, true north, no matter if you live in 2000 BC or 2000 AD. So why should he point out that his angle is identical to the one at Stonehenge? Stonehenge is at 51N, and Kokino is at 42N. According to sollumis.com, on 21 June:
"There is very good compliance of the results" indeed.
This looks for all in the world as if Mr. Cenev had read the 1963 report on Stonehenge he cites, learned that he must find an angle of 23,9° somewhere, and then went and did find this angle. Maybe I am misreading this, but then what in the world is this thing about "coordinates of solstice markers", and what is measured by "23,9°" in both Stonehenge and Kokino? The sad thing is that I don't put it past UNESCO to put the site on the list without even bothering to look for such glaring problems in the "evidence" presented. -- dab (đł) 11:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Cenev:
Would you believe this guy is head of a planetarium? The figures may be correct, but the difference in declination is hardly "due to so called precession". It is due, if correct, to a change in axis tilt, apparently by less than half a degree. Regarding azimuth and altitude ("height"), he doesn't express himself clearly, but I take it he is simply describing sunrise as seen from the "sky watcher central position" of his obervatorium. The h parameter is then just a function of what the horizon looks like from that spot, and the A parameter the associated azimuth. I still have no idea what the "23,9°" "coordinate" is supposed to be. My impression is that this guy does not really know what he is talking about. And he is the big astronomy expert trying to convince the UNESCO this is an observatory.
So, it isn't my job to review his stuff, and the site has notability in any case just as a Bronze Age settlement, but my impression is that the whole observatory thing is very, very dubious, and probably little more than the hobby-horse of Mr. Cenev. -- dab (đł) 14:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I figured out what this is about. He is trying to date the site by determining
axis tilt.
"coordinate of solstice" is just an oblique way of saying "axis tilt".
His 23,9° figure is the same as his 23° 54â 05â. He is therefore claiming to be able to measure the alignment of his observatory to an accuracy of 6â difference in axis tilt. This would require a precision of less about one or two arc minutes in the actual alignment. This is theoretically possible, but you would need an alignment of two notches, you cannot just observe one notch from a "central position".
According to out axis tilt article,
"According to mathematical calculations", I take this to yield 23.99 for 2000 BC, 23.84 for 1000 BC and 23.7 for 0AD/BC. Using this to date an alignment of some notches in a jagged landscape requires fantastic precision, and I would like to see some error bars on that. -- dab (đł) 07:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Sowlos. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Wheel of the Year seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you. â
Sowlos
18:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Template:Paganism (contemporary). Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Your edit appeared to be more of a
'hostile takeover' by WP:COI editor
than the uncontroversial move you reverted. Please refrain from attacking other editors and please consider heading to the talk page before altering the naming scheme of an article series. You may respond at the
talk page if you have any further disagreements or concerns. â
Sowlos
18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I presumed Peter Joseph is notable because he has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. 4 millions of notability reasons â Preceding unsigned comment added by Magomandrake ( talk âą contribs) 13:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The question is, does his biography have notability beyond his WP:1E association with the " Zeitgeist Movement". Obviously, he is notable enough to be discussed within the "Zeitgeist" article. The question is, just how many article about him should we carry? I see no notability sufficient for "standalone" coverage. This is more than suggested by the brevity of his "biography" article, which does not have more substance than what could be covered in a brief paragraph at the main "Zeitgeist" page. -- dab (đł) 13:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dbachmann. I need to be able to use inline hieroglyphs for some pages I'm working on. I noticed that you proposed a div workaround on the page Help:WikiHiero syntax. But as may be seen from the example given, as well as my own poor attempts, it doesn't work, or perhaps no longer works. Do you have any other ideas about how to achieve an inline hieroglyph or hieroglyph group? Any suggestions would be extremely welcome!! Thanks-- NfrHtp ( talk) 14:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
His Holiness, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
AJ Kirwin (
talk)
15:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't take this as in any way polemic. It is not at all intended as such. I just think that you might be interested in this article. Esoglou ( talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
well thank you, I do not see what could be polemic about this link, but is there anything in particular you wanted to draw my attention to? As far as I can see, Wikipedia has already much deeper coverage than what is on that page, and these day journalistic pieces are more often than not actually based on Wikipedia. I know I would base my stuff on Wikipedia if I was an under-paid journalist. -- dab (đł) 08:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is there a discrepancy between the article title "Weringerode" and the lead sentence ("Wernigerode")? -- AnonMoos ( talk) 19:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It's just a typo. -- dab (đł) 09:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Several years ago you inserted a reference to Wetergaard, without a title or anything else. Would you please complement?
I can comment if you can show me the diff. I have made some 2E+5 edits over the years, and I cannot remember them all. I imagine it will be apparent from the context, perhaps the same work was cited elsewhere on the page. -- dab (đł) 17:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In case you are referring to the current footnote 7,
which may well have been inserted by me several years ago, I have to say,
But perhaps my sarcasm is misplaced and you are referring to something entirely different. Then please show me the diff. -- dab (đł) 17:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Witch Hunt Barnstar |
Thanks for your help improving kindins, reiks, megistane, albruna, waluburg and other witchcraft. Tuurngait ( talk) 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
Well, Doug, perhaps the articles could indeed have been merged instead of deleted. The VarĂ°lokkur page consisted of this
Now, this isn't an "article", but it could very well become a paragraph in Saga of Erik the Red, or in some article on Old Norse magic ( Seidhr etc.), or it could be dumped on wiktionary, which lacking the word. No, of course we shouldn't stoop to spending time discussing a guy who calls people "institutionalized racist", but this doesn't mean we need to go out of our way to lose relevant content. -- dab (đł) 06:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I wondered whether you could elucidate on your assertion that this seal is a fake? I have no access to MacAndrew's work, though I am presently ordering a copy, and the googlebooks link does not allow access to page 141 which according to the index discusses seals. Certainly the seal of the 1st Earl of Douglas's son, James Douglas, 2nd Earl of Douglas and Mar, is in the Gelre Armorial, and is the same, excepting the Mar quarterings. Regards. Brendandh ( talk) 09:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, google books displays p. 141 for me, I don't know what they base this difference in access on. I can send you a screenshot if you like, but of course I also do not have access to the entire book.
McAndrews calls it "a dubious seal" and explains "The seal's complexity, with two ordinaries juxtaposed, makes it very questionable." He doesn't go into further detail, as the seal is not his present focus on that page.
Do you have a link to an image of the Douglas arms in the Gelre Armorial? Should be fol. 64v. -- dab (đł) 10:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Not a particularly good one, but it is here: [21] No. 288. You have to flick through quite a few pages! Brendandh ( talk) 11:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No. 288 (plate 51). You are right, the drawing corresponds exactly to File:Blason Douglas-Mar.svg (and File:Seal of 2nd Earl of Douglas.jpg), at least as far as the Douglas coa is concerned. This is interesting to me. So if McAndrew is right, the William Douglas seal could not have been "faked" more than 20 or 30 years after William's death. -- dab (đł) 11:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the seal that McAndrew is referring to as dubious
I think rather than this one
. The problem with the first is the fess chequy below the chief.
Brendandh (
talk)
09:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I am grateful you took the trouble to double-check this. I will look into it again over the coming week. But I really appreciate it, it bugs me when I make mistakes like this. --
dab
(đł)
15:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is there a correct way to respond to these sorts of mass edits? I reverted on a couple of pages I watched and when I took a look at the contribution history I thought asking someone more experienced would be useful. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 19:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dbachmann,
the maintenance tag on the top of the article Swiss federal election, 2011 does not mean that the article is bad or the information in it was not true. It just invites all users to look out for sources and to add references and in-line-citations. What is bad about it? It is just standard to have these labels where there are justified. They are useful to improve articles. And this article obviously still needs references. I guess you know the principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Kind regards -- RJFF ( talk) 20:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are talking about. Did I remove a maintenance tag? -- dab (đł) 06:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey dab, I've had some dealings with you in the past, so I thought I'd ask your advice on how to proceed on this. I noticed on a page I follow, David Rohl, that a user, User:Lung salad, tagged it with the category "pseudohistorians." I see on the category's talk page ( Category talk:Pseudohistorians) that there was a rather under-discussed, in my opinion, decision to keep the category. I have severe problems with labeling people "pseudohistorians," especially in the biographies of living persons. Also, while I'll agree (as an actual historian myself) that people like Velikovsky and Hancock and Baigent peddle psuedohistory, I have never heard the term "pseudohistorian" and a quick Google Book Search shows it is virtually nonexistent term. I think tagging someone's page with a category like "psuedohistory" is acceptable, if there is a verifiable secondary source calling it such, but, without such a source calling someone a pseudohistorian, Wikipedia is creating a category of people and a thing that does not exist. Take David Rohl, for instance, sure his theories are not accepted, but they are presented as a historian would present history. Even someone like Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh, they are just wrong, what they peddle is pseudohistory, but are they pseudohistorians? I don't know, since there is no such term. Should we call Isaac Newton a pseudoscientist because he dabbled in alchemy and his physics were replaced by Einstein's? I don't know. In fact, there is a pseudoscientist category, but Newton isn't in it, because I doubt there is a source calling him one. I just find the imposition of "pseudohistorian" on pages rather arbitrary, especially without secondary sources labeling someone a "pseudohistorian." I guess what I'm saying, is pseudohistory yes, pseudohistorian no. TuckerResearch ( talk) 18:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Et cetera: Talk:David_Rohl#Pseudohistory TuckerResearch ( talk) 04:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to reorganize Template:Ancient Mesopotamia. See here for the discussion; see here for the actual new draft. Your input is appreciated!-- Zoeperkoe ( talk) 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Sir, as an administrator, may we have your assistance on the Germanic Neopaganism page? Someone has hijacked it in an attempt to foster a small group.
Please read debate here
Thank you.
-- ThorLives ( talk) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
DBachmann, the problem that I mentioned with the Germanic Neopaganism page has been solved. I see you are busy here so I wanted to mention the fact.
Sorry that I posted incorrectly on your talk page. I did not hit the "new section tab" last time.
When you have a chance, please visit the Germanic Neopaganism page. We need someone to clean up errors, including some that I might have unintentionally made!
-- ThorLives ( talk) 23:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Dbachmann. Since you recently converted Muslim scholar from a redirect into a disambiguation page, I hope you will quickly help WP:FIXDABLINKS by correcting the many other existing Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Muslim scholar" and fix them to link to the correct article. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
yeah, the redirect was broken before I fixed it. The problem is list of modern-day Muslim scholars, the former redirect target, as the link Muslim scholars is mostly found in the context of medieval Muslim scholars (for good reason, too). What I have done is, I have drawn attention to the fact that there are many, many broken redirects. I have not created the broken redirects. -- dab (đł) 11:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This is getting incredibly annoying. Jembana and his ilk have copypasta'd (with appropriate slight adaptations, just to make it seem more relevant) their sermon all over the related Wikipedia articles to promote the Tartessian-as-Celtic hypothesis. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 17:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree this is annoying. Revert on sight of course. This is hardly even notable on the artice about Tartessian, let alone to topics like "History of Portugal". -- dab (đł) 08:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I wonder why you preferred "Agilaz" than "Egil" as article name for Agilaz. Is there a naming rule? Egil seems more common. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 19:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Egil is the Old Norse name. Aigil the Old High German one. Agilaz the reconstructed Common Germanic one. You may have noted that the article is not just dedicated to the Old Norse tradition, but to the comparison of the related character in distinct traditions. -- dab (đł) 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop removing Category:Categories named after former countries, Category:Categories named after wars, Category:Categories named after literary texts from various categories. As eponymously named categories, they are not "redundant" to any other categories. Good Olâfactory (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
As has been explained to you very patiently by many people, they are. You have a long history of refusing to Get It, and I do not feel obliged to spend any time with futile arguing in such a case. Sheesh, you do not even understand the meaning of the word "eponymous". Do yourself a favour and get a dictionary, and then spend some time reading instead of editing. -- dab (đł) 08:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Check this out. A non-stop chuckle-fest. rudra ( talk) 22:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Human stupidity is bottomless. The internet just gave a platform to the stupidity that was already there. Wikipedia was intended as an island of reason in the sea of intellectual entropy that is the internet. This island obviously needs dikes. -- dab (đł) 08:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've done a complete rewrite of the article Kaiserchronik. Since you started it, maybe you would like to do a crit of this? -- Doric Loon ( talk) 09:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you might be interested in the discussion on this page: Talk:Pictish language. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Dbachmann,
Bei dem Image ist folgendes inhaltliches Problem entstanden got. "X" entspricht dem gr. "Chi" in der Lautung "ch". In der de. Artikeldiskussion de:Gotisches Alphabet wurde das bemerkt. Vieleicht lÀsst sich das reparieren?
Beste GrĂŒĂe -- Alexander Leischner ( talk) 21:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
http://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Datei:Gothic_alphabet.png&filetimestamp=20070512135942
hm, eines meiner "FrĂŒhwerke", aus dem Jahr 2004. Inzwischen gibt es ja Unicode fĂŒr Gotisch, und es wĂ€re wohl am besten, diese Datei gar nicht mehr zu verwenden. Aber "falsch" ist es in dem Sinne nicht, es mag schon sein, dass die "Lautung" (in deutscher Orthographie) "ch" entspricht, aber das ist eben gleichbedeutend mit IPA /x/, und die Umschrift von gotischem Text verwedet hier auch x, einfach weil keine Verwechslungsgefahr besteht. -- dab (đł) 07:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ich hatte das auch nicht anders aufgefasst, zumal der LAut im Gotischen nur in Verbindung mit Fremdwörtern wie "Xristus" und wesentlich bei diesem verwendet wird. Danke fĂŒr Deine Antwort in der Artikeldisk. GrĂŒĂe -- Alexander Leischner ( talk) 10:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just an alert that discord continues at Germanic Neopaganism.
-- ThorLives ( talk) 05:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if you've already seen this one, but I thought it was funny: Homelands of the world's language families: a quantitative approach. Check page 17! That's the Punjab! To be fair, most of their results are good, and fit the usual proposals; but perhaps because they are so obvious anyway. (In North America, the Algonquian result is excusable â should be in the Prairies, Alberta/Montana, according to recent thinking â, the Na-DenĂ© result, too â South Central Alaska is usually given â, the Uto-Aztecan result may be due to overcounting of Nahuatl dialects â should rather be in SoCal/Arizona/NW Mexico, presumably the Sonoran Desert â, and the Siouan result is interesting, as it is surprisingly plausible and close to the consensus, and avoids the overcounting fallacy. The results for Eskimo-Aleut and Japanese are also unexpected.) But their urheimat results for Indo-European and Uralic are seriously off. I'm not even sure why. Did they overcount (or overrate/"over-weight") the Indo-Iranian (especially Indo-Aryan) and the Saami languages (and to an extent, the Finnic languages, although the circle is really in central-eastern Lapland, which is seriously weird) like that? It should be obvious that you can't treat a dialect continuum like the Hindi belt as a dozen languages and the German-Dutch continuum, which is of similar time depth, as only two, if you aim for a meaningful result. It is clear that most living Indo-European lineages are spoken in Europe! That result is just as weird as the Uralic one, even keeping in mind the bias in language counting. I suspect they were also misled by lexical replacement â apparently, they used a lexical distance criterion, too, not just a plain count of varieties. That said, they do admit that they found two lesser, secondary apparent centres of expansion, namely the Balkans and Eastern Anatolia. Inexplicably (not really inexplicably, of course), however, they decide in favour of Anatolia, while handwaving the Balkans away. You could just as well decide in favour of the Balkans, and given the historically attested Indo-European lineages, they are the most obvious centre of gravity of Indo-European. On that basis, the urheimat should clearly be sought in Eastern, especially Southeastern Europe, say, in the Danube valley. Anyway, I think that a nested centre-of-gravity method would overcome the weaknesses of the method, and give much more accurate results, as long as you use a consensus tree (which omits uncertain nodes and is based on the common-innovations method of subgrouping, instead of lexicostatistics, of course). -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 22:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course, deciding (without justification internal to the method) that a result is wrong and a secondary, less preferred, result must be right, instead of acknowledging the weaknesses of the method, is arbitrary in the first place, but it is obvious that they didn't like the idea of having revived Out-of-India. I suspect that the reason for the result is that Indo-Iranian is really the only clearly primary Indo-European branch with a great time-depth in the first place. Also, I think that the Saami languages have strong lexical differences, which is why the method weighted them so much more strongly than would be appropriate given that they only form a single branch of Uralic, and one that does not seem to have a greater time-depth than Finnic or Samoyedic. Anyway, new proof that quantitative approaches aren't worth much if the method, data, or interpretation is dubious, and should never be run in "dumb" mode, i. e., without close human expert supervision and guidance. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Could you check this page about "one of the oldest churches in the world"? -- Ghirla -ŃŃŃĐż- 22:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop removing valid referenced material, as you did with your recent edits of 14-16 November 2011â to the
Dagger article. Such edits constitute
vandalism and are
reverted. Please use the discussion page to raise any complaints you have about images in the article and/or suggestions for improvement, and obtain a consensus prior to removing images.
Dellant (
talk)
14:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Here, what's your prob with the "Gallowglass"? These were fighting men from the Isles, Argyll, Galloway and Mann that fought as mercenaries or via kinship in the internecine conflicts in Ireland ' beyond the pale' who settled, or maybe did not, in Gaelic Ireland in the high Medieval and early Modern. What's the beef? Will be reverting your controversial edits, until you come up with an explanation better than 'Warrior clip-art', whatever that means....: Col Ciotach, the Arch Gallowglass would maybe confirm that if you were kicking about before 1647 and playing around with the Ulster chieftains. The North Channel is an easier passage than the English Channel. The Kingdom of Dal Riata, Lord of the Isles, King of Mann, Clan Suibhne and Clan Donald would all attest to that. That pic shows a west Highland warrior in full fig on a tombstone, in the manner that he would like to be remembered, and it is attested that that is that of MacGillespie of Finlaggan. As soon as a GallGaidheal crossed the Northern Channel for hire he was a Gallowglass, no more no less. Brendandh ( talk) 02:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
My problem is not with the fighting men, my problem is with the Wikipedia article, and with editors like you who seem to make it their task to invert the burden of WP:V. You still seem to think that it is ok for you to post any old unreferenced rambling to Wikipedia, and anyone taking issue with that is supposed to prove to you that your material is flawed. It doesn't work like that. Either write proper, referenced encyclopedic content, or else sit back and let people who do work on the pedia on peace. Seriously, how old are you? You have been "contributing" to Wikipedia since 2007 and you still haven't got the point of WP:ENC, how is this even possible? -- dab (đł) 10:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Poor you! A bit of research work. Oh well, I find that kind of fun. I really don't think you understand the idea of irregular mercenary companies in Ulster and the west of Scotland in the 14th to 17th c. There was no record in general of all but the major combatants. That free-use image of Gillespie's tombstone is a prime example of a contemporary view of the fighting man in the Gaelic theatre of operations at that time, and entirely suitable to be used as a descriptive image. Would you suggest a knight of France in the 14thc. looked dissimilar to another one of lowland Scotland, England, Spain etc.? Much the same in the Norse Gael lands. Furthermore in Durer's picture, yep the boys at the back with Lochaber Axes do look like their heidsmen's hindmen, but you wouldn't expect a Highland gentleman to go out without his retinue would you? FYI again, a Gallowglass was a hired or otherwise indentured Scots Highland Daoine Uaisle, with or without his 'tail' of men, in the service of some chieftain in Ireland. When they were off in Europe they were described as other. While one may have had pretendy Zouaves in the US civil war etc. in a place far removed from the origin of the species of that type of soldier, Gallowglass is a name purely based on the language of the land in which they lived and fought. Brendandh ( talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Sargon of Akkad for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Zoeperkoe ( talk) 04:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have bee following this article for quite some time now. These are not trivial respellings in indic scripts. but different names for nakshatras. I am adept in 3 indian languages and know the difference between their calendars, months and nakshatras. Please see Malayalam Calendar, Tamil Calendar etc for your reference. Also I would reuqest you to use the discussion page before deletion of any content. â Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigA ( talk âą contribs) 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
you are referring to this. It would be nice of you to give the diff, especially in the case of edits of months ago.
I grant you that the names were trivial respellings only in some cases. They were non-trivial but completely unreferenced in the others. If you want to, say, state that Ardra is known as Thiruvathirai in Tamil and as Đ„ŃŃŃгОĐč ĐŸŃ ĐžĐœ in Mongolian, you are kindly invited to provide a reference to the effect. -- dab (đł) 10:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is swiss-oriented therefore ss is used instead of Ă. -- SonniWP ( talk) 21:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice to know, I guess. I have never even looked at that article? So why come here and tell me? -- dab (đł) 11:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you think? -- Ghirla -ŃŃŃĐż- 06:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Dieter. Some very odd edits in broken English. Please check when/if you have time. -- Ghirla -ŃŃŃĐż- 11:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Great job, but could you take a look at the links to disambiguation pages? According to the Articles With Multiple Dablinks] you have 28 links in the article. Could you let them point to the right place? Thanks in advance! Night of the Big Wind talk 00:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Zoupan reverted the redirect of Theories on the origin of Croats and added back some fringe views about the Croats being of Iranian origin.-- â ZjarriRrethues â talk 16:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I responded, very late, to your comment on the tentative Ghosts in English-speaking cultures article that I started a while ago but have hesitated to expand. Maybe you could reply at Talk:Ghost#Ghosts in English-speaking cultures. I am genuinely undecided. On the one hand, giving the English-speakers their own article would be unbiased and symmetrical, and there are plenty of sources ... on the other hand, it could be impossible to prevent forking... Aymatth2 ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree this is difficult no matter how you look at it. But I do feel strongly that treating "English speakers" as a group is about as spectacularly misguided as you can go. Of course, in a first approximation, "English speakers" are the British and their immediate cousins overseas, say, North Americans and Australians. That may still make a certain amount of sense up to 1930 or so. From that time, US pop culture completely upsets this division. For any topic that has a scope extending on either side of the 1930s, you should not assume that "English speakers" even in this limited sense is in any way a meaningful division.
As soon as you include in "English speakers" those parts of the Anglosphere which are not dominated by British-derived culture, viz. South Asian, Caribbean and Sub-Saharan African cultures, any vestigial cultural unity of the term breaks down completely. -- dab (đł) 10:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that your mileage may vary, these are matters of opinion. As long as our bias reflect the bias in English-language scholarly literature, this is just as it should be. Wikipedia doesn't fix biases, it reflects biases. We are happy just as long as we don't introduce any new biases. If a bias is already out there, we just duplicate it. You are basically saying you want more material on obscure cultures. To this, I shrug and say, well, write it. As long as it isn't written, there is no reason for any splits. Once you have written it, we can reassess the situation. -- dab (đł) 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed several broken links because the online version of EncyclopĂŠdia Iranica has moved from iranica.com (which flatly states "this domain has expired") to iranicaonline.org some time ago. I fixed some of those I noticed, but there have to be hundreds of links to iranica.com on Wikipedia still. Is there a way to find and update them (semi-)automatically? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 19:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Your input is needed regarding a user who insists on inserting a table which includes many very dubious etymologies, ringing all Turkish nationalism bells. Problem: The entries are cited, and I can't prove that his sources are BS. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Word | Scythian Word | Source | Interpretation | Derived from | Source/Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
anira | anira | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to repair | Turkish tamir, to repair | A. Chay 2002, 155 [2] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Iranian ab, water | Hermann Parzinger 2004, 78 [3] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Turkish Yer-Sub, earth godess (Yerâ>earth; Subâ>water) | Ocak 2002 [4]; Haussig 1999, 213 [5] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | Pra-Mother | Turkish Api/Apai, mother | G.Dremin, 2006 [6] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Turkish Ebi, livebearing mother/ancestor (fertility) | Zakiev, 1986, 27 [7] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Turkish Abiasch, rain spirit (spiritual character) | Ărmin VĂĄmbĂ©ry 1885, 119 [8] |
Api | Api | Herodot, Hist. 4.59 | earth godess | Turkish Abis, rain evocator/to summon rain (shaman) | Ărmin VĂĄmbĂ©ry 1885, 119 [9] |
Arar | Arar | Herodot, Hist. 4.48 | river | Turkish aryk, flowing waters (stream) | G.Dremin, 2006 [10] |
Arimaspoi | arima | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | one | - | |
Arimaspoi | arima | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | â | Turkish yarım, half | Latyshev 1947, 307 [11] |
Arimaspoi | aspoi? | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | â | Turkish sepi, eye | Latyshev 1947, 307 [12] |
Arimaspoi | spu | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | â | Turkish spu, eye | G.Dremin, 2006 [13] |
Arimaspoi | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | one-eyed | Mongolian Ă€rĂ€m dĂ€k, one-eyed | Laufer 1908, 452; Vermeer 1996, 114 [14] |
Arimaspoi | Arimaspoi | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | mountaineer | Mongolian mountaineer | Neumann 1856, 177 [15]; New Year booking for Philology and Pedagogy 1858, 336 [16] |
Arimaspoi | Arimaspoi | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | â | Iranian aspa, horse | Tomaschek 1888, 761 [17] |
Arimaspoi | Arimaspoi | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | one-eyed horseman | Turkish spu/sepi âeyeâ und iranian aspa âhorseâ | Phillips 1955, 173-174. |
Arimaspoi | spu | Herodot, Hist. 4.27 | eye | â | |
Arpoxai, Kolaxai, Lipoxai | â | â | â | Iranian xĆĄÄy, to reign | ? |
Arpoksai, Kolaksai, Lipoksai | â | â | â | Turkish soy, clan/ancestry | Gasanov 2002, 210 [18] |
Arpoksai | Arpok | â | â | Turkish ArpaÄ, priest; or Arpalyk, landowner | Gasanov 2002, 210 [19] |
arta | arta | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to sit | Turkish otur, to sit | A. Chay 2002, 155 [20] |
Aschy | Aschy | Herodot, Hist. 4.23 | juice of a tree fruit | Bashkir akhsha/aschi, juice of a tree fruit | Karl Friedrich Merleker 1841, 14 (-> the way of handling the fruit is identical) [21] |
daldu | daldu | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to fill | Turkish doldur, to fill | A. Chay 2002, 155 [22] |
enarei | enarei | Ibis, 4, 67 | womanlike man | Iranian a, without | Abaev 1949 [23] |
enarei | enarei | Ibis, 4, 67 | womanlike man | Iranian nar, man | Abaev 1949 [24] |
enarei | enarei | Ibis, 4, 67 | womanlike man | Turkish anair, virago | Latyshev 1893, 63 [25] |
enarei | enarei | Ibis, 4, 67 | castrated | Turkish enar, to castrate/to lose his manhood | G.Dremin, 2006 [26] |
gik | gik | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | sky | Turkish gök, sky | A. Chay 2002, 155 [27] |
irchigi | irchigi | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to increase | Turkish choÄal, to increase | A. Chay 2002, 155 [28] |
Kolaksai | Kolak | â | â | Turkish Kola, Bronze; or kylych, sword | Gasanov 2002, 216 [29] |
kutta | kutta | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to add | Turkish kat, to add | A. Chay 2002, 155 [30] |
kyrbasia | kyrbasia | Herodot, Hist. 7.64 | acuate headdress | Turkish kur/koy, to straighten up/to put; and baĆ/baĆa, head/to the head | Mlasowsky 2006, 33 [31] |
Lipoksai | Lipok | â | â | Turkish Alp, miraculous patron | Gasanov 2002, 204 [32] (Lipoksai is also known as Afrasiab and as the son of Tur in the iranian mythology) |
Oiorpata | Oiorpata | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | man killer | ||
Oiorpata | oior | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | man | Turkish er, man | G.Dremin, 2006 [33] |
Oiorpata | pata | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | to kill/beat | Turkish patak, to kill/beat | Karl Steuerwald 1974, 268 [34] |
Oiorpata | pata | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | to kill/beat | Turkish bat, to kill/beat | G.Dremin, 2006 [35] |
Oiorpata | oior | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | to beat | general Romance battre, to beat | G.Dremin, 2006 [36] |
Oiorpata | oior | Herodot, Hist. 4.110 | man | Iranian vira, man | ? |
sagaris | sagar | Herodot, Hist. 7.64 | battle axe | Mordwinian sĂŒgĂ€, axe | Albrecht Wirth 1905, 184 [37] |
Targitai | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.5 | â | Targit, Turkish-Mongolian name | Karatay 2003, 161 [38] |
Targitai | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.5 | â | Tarkutay, Mongolian chieftain | Karatay 2003, 161 [39] |
Targitai | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.5 | â | Iranian darga , long | Abaev 1949, 163 [40] |
Targitai | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.5 | â | Iranian tava , strength | Abaev 1949, 163 [41] |
Traspier | â | Herodot, Hist. 4.6 | â | Iranian aspa , horse | Hermann Parzinger 2004, 78 [42] |
val | val | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | way | Turkish yol, way | A. Chay 2002, 155 [43] |
vita | vita | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | opposite | English opposite , opposite | A. Chay 2002, 155 [44] |
vurun | vurun | Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) | to chop | Turkish vuruĆ, to chop | A. Chay 2002, 155 [45] |
why was the above posted to my talkpage? If you keep the decent references and get rid of the "Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks" garbage, we can talk about it, but don't post this stuff to talkpages, just give me the diff if you want to point to deleted material. -- dab (đł) 07:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The article Ancient Dravidian culture article looks like a piece of garbage written by some tamil nationalist.there is nothing ancient about it everything is contemporary.there also lot of peacock terms and pov.the first line of article itself is un wikipedia like.i saw your comments on the article talk page.what can be done about the article. Pernoctator ( talk) 06:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Tell me about it. What can be done? The thing should be merged, e.g. into Sangam period. -- dab (đł) 07:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
agree.merge.and how do we do that?.considering the article is mostly garbage.i am cleaning a lot of indian ethnic group articles at the moment. Pernoctator ( talk) 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have commented on this at great length on the artilce talkpage. The article is trash, and it is trash with an agenda, basically the worst kind of content that can be submitted to Wikipedia. People refuse to fix it. The burden is on them to fix it. As long as they refuse, the page can just be redirected.
Also, the redirect "Ancient Dravidian culture" should be put up for discussion, as is is unclear whether the term has any kind of generally agreed-upon, idetifiable meaning or definition. The burden of proving that this term exists and has an identifiable meaning lies entirely with those who wish to keep such a page. Nobody disputes that an ancient Dravidian culture exists. The words "ancient" and "Dravidian" are here used compositionally as adjectives modifiying "culture". We do not create pages on random combinations of adjectives and nouns. The article on this culture also exists, it is found at Sangam period. -- dab (đł) 10:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
ok redirecting the page right now to Sangam period.i am also going through some of the other trash oops articles these people have created.thanks for you thoughts. Pernoctator ( talk) 11:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
just saw you have already redirected.great.cheers. Pernoctator ( talk) 11:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I expect the pov pushers will come back and prefer a page full of garbage and content warning tags over a redirect. But if you want to help, you can spend some time on the chore of letting them know in no uncertain terms that the burden lies on them to produce decent material. Nobody has any business to restore content that is garbage, or indeed even brillant content that is unreferenced. You restore it, you take the responsibility to fix it. -- dab (đł) 12:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
yes sir on guard gainst pov pushers. Pernoctator ( talk) 12:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen the recent comments at Talk:Aram (biblical region)? Dougweller ( talk) 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dbachmann,
My name is Jonathan Obar
user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community
HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 02:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Had I thought of it before, I would have given you a notification of this discussion while it was still open, since it's an area you've expressed concern about. But I didn'tâbut thought you still might want to read the discussion. Good Olâfactory (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
look, I've given up on telling you why I think some of your actions are misguided. You collect "insults" on your user page as if it was somehow to your credit that you exasperate people. I do not go around randomly insulting people, but I believe in WP:SPADE. I have no exaggerated dread of your power or the damage you can do. But I can see you do damage in a small but consistent way. I have told you as much. You listed it in your gallery of insults, so you are clearly proud of the attention you get for doing damage. In such situations, I tend to drop the topic and focus on other corners of Wikipedia. Yeah, I have a lot of time I choose to invest here, but it is not unlimited, and when I begin to feel my time is spent on petty online disputes I tend to decide it is worth more than that. -- dab (đł) 08:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi On 18 Nov., you have tagged Ancient settlements in Turkey for Synthesis. Frankly I haven't seen your point. This is a list and not a text. No opinion is stated and the list solely depends on sourced Wikipedia articles. I think the tag is irrevelant. Cheers. Nedim ArdoÄa ( talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The relevant section can be found here Cheers, Lindsay Hello 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I confirmed the material originally written on the Jyotish page in the History section. It is correct. Please don't remove the material, or add uncited/unreliable content. AssociateLong ( talk) 00:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
um what, you "confirmed the material"? And this somehow excuses you from WP:CITE? -- dab (đł) 16:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AssociateLong ( talk) 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Since you did such a great job turning the de-disambiguated Broadsword into a fine article at Basket-hilted sword, how would you like to - wait for it - take a stab at doing the same for Great sword? â Preceding unsigned comment added by BD2412 ( talk âą contribs)
I am not sure I am too happy with this approach... I believe it turns out the case is not really parallel to "broadsword", but I may be wrong.
It turns out that the spelling as a single word, greatsword arises in the 1930s [1]. Before that, of course you find lots of instances of "a great sword", back to Revelations 6:4 (gladius magnus). The term broadsword is easily a century older [2], the hyphenated broad-sword even earlier [3] [4].
My point is that "broad-sword" was a real term back in a time where swords were still in use (if only for gentlemen's duels), but "greatsword" dates to the era of Errol Flynn. The terms "broadsword" and " basket-hilted sword" coincide almost perfectly, with only the very earliest examples (16th century) having no basket-hilt, so that they can easily be treated as a stage in the development of the type. A "great sword" can basically be any sword which is "great". -- dab (đł) 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts -- imho this could be merged with the Types of swords article, which is little more than a naked list of articles. -- dab (đł) 08:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
FYI, your redirect was reverted by an IP editor. Frietjes ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Answered on my talk page. -- Ecelan ( talk) 19:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I've inserted your changes in the right section.-- Tirgil34 ( talk) 21:06, 13. March 2012 (CET) âPreceding undated comment added 20:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC).
Hi Dbachmann, I noticed that quite a while ago you changed {{ Polytonic}} from invoking a specific style declaration regarding font-families to simply transcluding the regular lang template with grc defined. Does this mean that {{lang|grc|word}} is now identical to the polytonic template? And does this also mean that {{lang-grc|word}} is now technically identical to the polytonic template, save for the fact it would also give " Ancient Greek:"? We have a guideline that still recommends {{ Polytonic}}, though confusingly alongside a recommendation for using {{lang|grc|word}}. I assume that this dual recommendation stems from the days when polytonic forced fonts that were know to be capable of displaying complex diacritics. Thank you, â cardiff | chestnut â 22:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is my understaniding that {{ polytonic}} dates from a time when Unicode was new and problematic. No recent system should have any problem displaying polytonic Greek, and it is enough to just use {{ lang}} to mark the language as 'grc'. The recommendation for using {{ polytonic}} in my view is obsolete, but as long as it is just an alias of {{lang|grc|}}, no harm is done. -- dab (đł) 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Please check this link because we have one serious issue. User Tirgil34 (known for pseudohistoric claims at Scythian languages) along with Maikolaser (most likely his sockpuppet) have started aggressive Turanist agenda not just on English Wikipedia but also all others, even Commons. There are two issues:
I've contacted Dougweller regarding to this issue also. Cheers, mr. O. -- 217.24.133.219 ( talk) 02:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Tirgil34 has a long history of pushing Turanist nonsense. So please ban them already, they have had their fair chance to edit responsibly. If Tigril34 is a German, I must assume he (hardly "she") is not just a German so much as a "German", or else I would be at a loss to explain the obsession with Pan-Turkism. A German would hardly declare he is a Defender of the good old German Neutrality. Tigril34 is just adding insult to injury by taking the piss out of his host nation.
This doesn't go to say that matters stand better in the Persian nationalist camp, these guys form a regular wikimafia and their own nationalist nonsense for some reason cannot be touched or they make mincemeat of you. So far we have been able to deal with the Turanist trolls more or less efficiently. One kind of misbehaviour does not excuse another, but if you look at the Cyrus cylinder fuckfest, you will agree that Wikipedia has more pressing problems with the Persian cranks than with the Turkish ones. -- dab (đł) 11:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
We are still too lenient with this type of editor. It has always been crystal clear that Tirgil34 is not editing constructively, or in the interest of the project. Hence he should have been warned in no uncertain terms, and then banned. But we are getting there. By comparison to the drawn-out dramas of the past over such editors, this has been comparatively painless. -- dab (đł) 09:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:Homer infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
10:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you please assure the fine people at Talk:Subartu that, despite what some supposedly reliable sources (it's sad that this kind of crackpot idea can be published and given the appearance of a respected academic position) might say, there are no modern Kurdish tribes with an identifiable history precisely in their current location going back to the days of Sargon of Akkad? Quick, before Izady's claim is discovered by more Kurds and spreads further through Wikipedia. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Here we go again; another Kurdish lad with Izady as "holy encyclopaedia" - named Gomada ( contributions). He's forcing Gutian languageâ among "Kurdish history" category, Buyids, Ziyarids, Sallarids as Dailamites are "Kurdish", and Badi' al-Zaman al-Hamadani (labeled Arabic even by Iranica) is "Kurd", etc. Greetings, Mr. O. -- 46.239.25.119 ( talk) 11:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Gomada, what the hell does any of this have to do with Subartu? How is the plight of the Kurdish people related to some Sumerian toponym? You are welcome to campaign for whatever political views you may have, just don't do it on Wikipedia. -- dab (đł) 17:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at [9]. Alefbe ( talk) 21:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
well, some kind admin should save us the bother and block this one, as he is clearly not even remotely interested in working on the pedia. I really have no wish to waste breath pretending to "AGF" on cases as obvious as this one. -- dab (đł) 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Changing a redirect into a non-redirect so that you can prod it is not appropriate. Please do not do that again. I personally think the redirect probably should be deleted, but since I don't know any of the details about the subject, I don't want to nominate it at RFD myself. It really wouldn't take much longer to start a discussion at WP:RFD than it would to add the prod tag back, and it certainly would have a better chance of actually getting it deleted than what you have been doing. Calathan ( talk) 20:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I found a mistake. I fixed it. Then you jump out of the woodwork and waste my time over nothing. No sir, what you are doing is "inappropriate". If you do not know anything about the subject, why do you take it upon yourself to redirect Pope John Paul III to Antipope? Present a reference on an antipope of that name. You don't have one? Then please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. It is vandalism to create nonsensical redirects. Yes, it is even vandalism when you are restoring vandalism after other people who actually know what they are doing have fixed it. -- dab (đł) 21:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
no, you do not understand that actively restoring vandalism counts as vandalism. Fine, remove the prod tag if you must, but do not restore the vandalised revision of the page. I am taking the painful approach here in order to impress on you that what you are doing is stupid. Therefore, I suppose, I should not be surprised to find that you fail to understand why it is stupid. I do have a delete button, and I could just have deleted this pointless redirect as a completely uncontroversial act of cleanup. What I am trying to do here is to get you to understand that the rules are here to serve the pedia, and not the other way round. I suppose this goes far above your head, so yeah, do "report" me for violating templat syntax and red tape and what have you, anything to keep you from touching article namespace where the grown-ups are trying to build an encyclopedia. -- dab (đł) 08:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the first thing you need to do is to learn distinguish non-negotiable policy (such as WP:CITE, WP:NPOV), from guidelines of project-internal good practice (such as "the prod template should not be used on pages that are at that moment redirects"). There is a fundamental difference. The point of this exercise was to impress this difference on you. But I think we can drop this now, as anything that hasn't been learned from it so far isn't going to happen now as we devolve into acrimony. I think we have got as much WP:LAME out of this as has been in it, so peace. -- dab (đł) 05:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Since you have a deep knowledge and interest in ancient history, would you please have a look at discussions we have at Nagorno-Karabakh? We need a third opinion from uninvolved editors, so your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Grand master 20:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I do have an interest in ancient history, but I have been dealing with puerile nationalists abusing ancient history to make themselves feel better about their ingroup since 2004, so I am just a little tired of the exercise. -- dab (đł) 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"Which I hoped you were going to acquire over time, as you said you started to take university courses, but so far I cannot see it has done much with your misplaced hyperbole" [12]. Excuse me? I suggest you start explaining on what grounds you've produced this fantasy personal information about me before I take the next step with this. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
hello, after researching your edits you seem to have very good understanding of the subject as there is an ongoing dispute whenever to describe the swedes as germanic just as the germans article so i therefore invite you to join the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swedesdiscussion and possibly settle this once for all, thanks 220.136.0.45 ( talk) 17:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dab, what say you about the infobox that has apparently established itself in that article? Best, Trigaranus ( talk) 13:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dbachmann, this is me robin klein, The former page Syrian Malabar Nasrani has now been remaned as Saint Thomas Christians. There is a contention now at the page. The contention is about a single line which states about the probable Jewish origin of the Syrian Malabar Nasranis or Saint Thomas Christians. There has been a long discussion and a lot of quote from lots of reliable sources have been provided at the talk page [ [13]]. A solution is not impossible but certain administrators are adament and refuse to include the mention of probable Jewish descent of the Nasranis or Saint Thomas Christians. Please help with this situation. It seems unfair when administrators come together to prevent anybody else from adding new information. And whatever the conflict, a fair solution is always possible. But here the editors with admin status are not willing to listen to anyone and state that without their consensus no changes could be made. Please help. thanks Robin klein ( talk) 05:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I happened across the article on Charles today and noted your comment on the List of Notable Charleses on the talk page. I agree with your sentiment that this is a nonsense, and was tempted to delete the section in its entirety. But then I noticed that you had appeared to try to tidy it up (or rationalise it) and I didn't want to be too hasty. So I thought I'd come here first. I can't see what purpose it serves and how it can ever be encyclopedic (and hence I'd still be inclined to jettison it): but maybe you have different views. Kind regards. Johnlp ( talk) 22:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The article BhÄratas has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Sandeep (
talk)
09:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Tinynanorobots has proposed merging Types of swords into classification of swords. This being your area, I'd appreciate your view on this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ragnarok (Norwegian band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnarok (Norwegian band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. __ meco ( talk) 12:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Swords by era, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Picture interpretation an editor has a question about one of your images. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 08:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Your split proposal at Knight has gained some comment. Would you like to say what you had in mind?-- Monstrelet ( talk) 08:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
In view of your contributions at Nuwaubian Nation, [14] and that Yamassee native americans redirects there, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamassee/Yamassee native americans. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 04:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Polytonic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historical urban community sizes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical urban community sizes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shii (tock) 04:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I saw that you were still active on that page, so I think I can ask you:
I'm trying to verify the spelling, in Sanskrit of the term "Rowdree Darpana" that appears on p23 of the Shastra (in the Josyer translation). It is claimed as meaning "Terrifying Mirror".
The scans of the Sanskrit portions on the Sacred Text Archive only go up to p 10, so I can't verify it using that. However, based on the claimed meaning and the pronunciation, I believe that the Sanskrit should be à€°à„à€Šà„à€°à€żà€Żà€Šà€°à„à€Șà€Ł (rudriya darpaNa, terrifying mirror). I have absolutely no experience with Sanskrit, so I can't be sure if the conjugation is correct.
Would you happen to have a copy of the book to check for me, or failing that, experience in Sanskrit to determine the proper conjugation of the word? If you can help me with this, please leave a message at this page. I've also left a copy of this request on the Vymanika talk page. Thanks! 70.34.147.3 ( talk) 04:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann. Since you dealt with the quotefarm at Name of Azerbaijan, could you please have a look at recent edits to the article Azerbaijan? I think someone is overstating his point by using too many quotes and giving inappropriate weight to the whole name issue. Thanks. Regards, Grand master 20:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
There is now a proposed Manual of style for religion articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. I have some reason to believe that your own expertise in dealing with matters of nationalism might well be of use here, given the large number of groups out there which deal substantially with what might be called ethnoreligions. Any input you might have would be more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 14:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear DBachmann,
just thanks - vielen Dank fĂŒr die Analyse des Zitats "Tradition, Asche und Feuer": Es ist so Ă€rgerlich, die NaivitĂ€t der Leute zu sehen, ĂŒbrigens schon vor dem Internet, z.B. "der Apfel, der Newton auf den Kopf fiel".
Ich habe den Verdacht, ein Ă€hnlicher Fall von Zitat nur im deutschen Sprachraum ist der Spruch mit dem Wind und den Leuten, die Mauern bauen oder WindmĂŒhlen. Oft als "chinesisches Sprichwort" bezeichnet. Gruss WalterH44 â Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterH44 ( talk âą contribs) 16:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you proposed a merger from Yahweh ben Yahweh into Nation of Yahweh, back in Jan 2011. However, you only tagged the target page, not the source, and didn't start a discussion. It doesn't appear to me that merger would be desirable, so I'm removing the proposal. â Fayenatic L ondon 11:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm letting you know that I have undone your edit to The Golden Bough, specifically the removal of the Popular Culture section. I believe that it's removal is premature and pruning would be preferable to complete removal, as many of the references in question are substantial in the works which reference it. I welcome your input. -- Tarage ( talk) 08:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of my edits are justified.
I do make mistakes, but will as a rule fix them if they are only pointed out to me.
But much of my efforts at building decent coverage in more difficult topics have been eroded either by people editing from a perspective of depressing stupidity, or more often from a clearly disingenious agenda, more often than not paired with stupidity of the kind assuming that describing, say, classical Tamil culture, as "CLASSICAL PROTO-WORLD 100'000'000 BCE NOBLE CIVILIZATION" somehow will give the topic more prestige than simply calling it "ancient". I.e. people opening to ridicule their in-group symbols by touting them naively. This has more or less convinced me, over the years, that much of my time here is wasted. I can still recover my own notes to myself from the edit histories, but it is futile to try and keep "the internet" (the depressingly stupid just literate enough to deface the topics they care about the most) from eroding the pedia.
The collaborative idea of investing research into a common pool instead of your own petty publication list has appealed to me very much, but I am now trying to move away from it again and rediscover that I am able to compose my own essays on my own computer, something which I have nearly done without in the years since 2004. -- dab (đł) 08:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello dab, I'm making an assumption that you were the one making the last three edits here - presumably you'd forgotten to sign in. I have reverted them all as none were discussed at all on the relevant article talk pages, which feels to me to be the right way to proceed. I have however removed the cross-in-circle image from one of the templates, I agree it wasn't appropriate. If my assumption was unwarranted I apologise - however the edits were consistent with what I know your views to be so I hope you'll forgive me. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This article looks as if it's going to be under attack by Persian editors again, who want to expunge all references to it being an Arabic work. Keep an eye on it, if you will, as I'm only allowed so many reverts. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 18:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.literature.at/viewer.alo?objid=13200&viewmode=fullscreen&scale=3.33&rotate=&page=1
GrĂŒĂe Alexander Leischner ( talk) 15:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you proposed a merger of BattĆjutsu and Iaido back on Jan 14 2011, more than a year and a half ago. You only tagged the target page, not the source, and didn't start a discussion. I'm removing the proposal. Thanks, Prburley ( talk) 17:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'll repeat it: "Which I hoped you were going to acquire over time, as you said you started to take university courses, but so far I cannot see it has done much with your misplaced hyperbole" [15]. Excuse me? I suggest you start explaining on what grounds you've produced this fantasy personal information about me and why you thought Wikipedia was the venue for it before I take the next step with this. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take a minute to study the edits of guy [16]? He is apparently the resurrection of a user you had some history with, named User:Tirgil34. He has been inserting some fringe nationalist nonsense into a dozen pages, misquoting/falsifying sources [17], and replacing WP:RS material with fringe Turkish nationalist sources. Kurdo777 ( talk) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Please provide a citation for Template:Zodiac date IAU and Template:Zodiac date. Otherwise I intend to propose the templates for deletion. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup on The Odin Brotherhood page. Could you take a look at Germanic neopaganism? A recent editor is spinning the article with racialist slant. Thanks. -- Heathenguy ( talk) 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Urals blank map.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator ( talk) 16:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
When you reverse all of my edits, you keep restoring errors. Harvey is not the author, for example, It is Hardman and Harvey. You also keep restoring in incorrect name of the Odin Brotherhood book! There is no "Prophecy" in the title. Please make one change at a time.
Thanks.
-- Heathenguy ( talk) 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
And, oh, his name is Mirabello, not Miravello. -- Heathenguy ( talk) 07:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, I'll repeat it: "Which I hoped you were going to acquire over time, as you said you started to take university courses, but so far I cannot see it has done much with your misplaced hyperbole" [18]. Excuse me? I suggest you start explaining on what grounds you've produced this fantasy personal information about me and why you thought Wikipedia was the venue for it before I take the next step with this. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
How about ==>>> this  ? ....... tell me please. Ś€ŚŚšŚŚ§ ( talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Would you like to weigh in (even if very briefly) in this RfC on Caste. Your experience on Wikipedia will be very helpful. The RfC link is: Talk:Caste#RfC:_Does_the_article_minimize_the_centrality_of_India_to_the_notion_of_caste.3F
I have invited three other editors and announced my intention to do so here. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tadeusz_Sulimirski_.26_Rahul_Sankrityayan â 117.207.62.240 ( talk) 09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, I've just added 'PolyLine' support into my perlshaper mapping script. Feel free to give it a whirl and give me any suggestions you may have. It now assumes than any 'PolyLine' shape is a river, colouring it the same as the 'coastline' colour (I added a 'river' style). For NE data, it will consider the 'region name' to be the name of the river. This means that the river name will show up in the id tag of the surrounding group of the river(s). gringer ( talk) 13:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, but I am creating a separate Akan people history article, upon the WikiProject Akan. The Akan also have nothing to do with the first Ivorian war, they are about 8 million in Ivory Coast and are farmers and peaceful there. In Ghana there are more Akans than in Ivory Coast. The Akans in Ivory Coast migrated there many centuries ago. MarkMysoe ( talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Your obvious editorialising makes me wonder whether you are the right person to write " a separate Akan people history article". Do you have any sort of personal stakes or bias in the topic? Or is your interest merely encyclopedic and academic? -- dab (đł) 06:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I "insulted the intelligence" of MarkMysoe by asking to follow the rules. That's what you get for "assuming good faith". I take this to mean that MarkMysoe says he knows perfectly well he is disregarding the rules, and it is "insulting" to pretend his behaviour is due to lack of intelligence rather than ill will. The only course here, of course, to take the conscious and "intelligent" attacks on project integrity on the part of MarkMysoe at face value from now on. -- dab (đł) 10:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Sulung is mentioned in Blench (2011) and in one of Matisoff's papers, so it's pretty certain that this is a language that deserves an article.
And you're right about Ethnologue not being gospel, and not to create too many stubs from it. Most of them were actually started up by User:kwamikagami. â Stevey7788 ( talk) 14:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zalmoxis Aleksandrovo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Magog the Ogre ( t âą c) 18:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you noticed. Drmies ( talk) 14:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This was semi'd some time ago and I we just received a note ( OTRS/ 2012100410002289 from somebody trying to edit it. Could unprotection be considered? Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you would bother to honour the request of somebody who went to the trouble of submitting a "ticket" rather than simply creating an account and begin to edit and learn about the project just like everyone else. "I refuse to register an account, so I am going through the process of submitting a formal request to Wikimedia instead", yeah, this sounds like a promising contributor. Semiprotection is no obstacle at all to anyone who intends to invest any time at all in developing an article. The only bona-fide edits prevented by semiprotection are casual fixes on things like spelling and punctuation. In cases such as Mahabharata, the benefits of such casual fixes are vastly, by several orders of magnitude, outweighed by casual vandalism and ill-advised deterioration. -- dab (đł) 10:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, last year you started a discussion in Talk:Three Yogas which had no following. I am taking this discussion one step ahead in the hope of a more encyclopedic article. I think this article should mention the issue you brought up. If you are still interested can you help me find a solution? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I am also confused about the redirected title Four Yogas (Hinduism). I can't find its edit history. Did you create it as a redirect? Hoverfish Talk 16:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, I just wanted to let you know I made an addition to a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans#1990-present which you have semi-protected. I wanted to see if you deem my addition sufficient or if you think it belongs elsewhere. Cheers, ( Timothysandole ( talk) 14:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
it's alright, you don't have to notify me, you are perfectly within your rights to do with the page as you see fit, it is just semi-protected to keep out drive-by editing. This doesn't affect your ability or your rights to edit in the least. -- dab (đł) 05:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Me ineptum?
I have re-worded the text to reflect that the translation is directly from the Greek text. I have tried, but was unable, to find the original Greek text of Eusebius to ascertain whether or not the word ΀οÏÏáżł alone is to be found, and therefore reference to "sign" constitutes a later accretion. The recent translation would suggest that the wording of the original 'celestial label', as it was directly attached to the sign itself, did not contain the word "sign" as such.
I am sure that you have noticed that I have in no instance removed or altered the 'traditional' wording of the Latin or its literal translation into English within the text. I am also sure that you recognise the appropriateness, in an encyclopedic context, of having an additional translation that is both from the original text and is framed in plain English. Always remember protege tuam pugam. Urselius ( talk) 09:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
z. K.. GrĂŒsse -- KurtR ( talk) 19:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Some of Armenia-related articles continue to be vandalized by some anti-Armenia-style users. Check out edits history of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Maybe you should permanently semi-block this article similar to the History of Armenia template. àŒ ( talk) 06:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dbachmann.
I see that you have made some comments in relation to the above article, comments which I think are relevant to the situation at hand, so I am contacting you to request any input you may be able to contribute.
The situation at hand is that I made what I felt were some basic edits, and they were repeatedly deleted by a contributor, even after I made an adjustment.
I am basically new to this scenario, so I hadn't been aware of the Talk page, etc. At any rate, I have been reading the talk page, and the content of my edit had already been largely addressed by other contributors, including yourself.
So, since I am tackling the deplorable state of the article in question and intend to do a significant edit, I would like to try and build a little consensus, and the more the merrier in the that process!
I would appreciate it if you could take the time to read through the recent entries on the Talk page and participate in the course of events leading to as substantial an edit as possible.
Thanks. Ubikwit ( talk) 16:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
I assume you mean this edit? This seems to be mostly about phrasing, as in "belief" vs. "hypothesis" and so on, and thus it isn't so much a content dispute as a sort of trial-and-error process towards optimal presentation of content. I see that Itsmejudith has also contributed towards a compromise.
Also, regarding
I must say I agree with the deletion of this. Not because it isn't true but because it is ridiculous. It is possible to state facts in a way to make them ridiculous.
Come on, "critics" of British Israelism? That's a bit like talking of "critics" of Biblical literalism. This kind of eccentric fringe belief isn't really open to "criticism", at least not in any reasonable sense of the word. People who are into this stuff do not have any concept of "criticism" to begin with, so it is really pointless to pretend this is something that can or should be "critiziced". I mean, it would be also true to state that the existence of Santa Claus can be doubted on genetic, medical, linguistic and archaeological grounds, but it would still be silly to insert a paragraph into the Santa Claus article discussing how "critics" have applied these fields to make their case that the supposed forest-dwelling gift-bringer is not in fact the undead version of an ancient bishop of Asia Minor, even though it would be perfectly, ahem, justified to make such a case. -- dab (đł) 08:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
A new editor has created Gathering hypothesis and heavily edited Hunting hypothesis. They both need work. Dougweller ( talk) 18:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Dbachmann, if you have time, do you think you could create a new map for File:Religion distribution.png using the source you pointed out? The current/earliest ones are all very inaccurate. - M0rphzone ( talk) 08:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, we're currently discussing whether to merge the Ancient Thebes (Boeotia) article you created into the Thebes, Greece article. Markussep Talk 14:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Any comment on this? Note there is a current RfC/U on the editor who turned your redirect into an article. Dougweller ( talk) 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dbachmann, I have left a message regarding Wuffa of East Anglia on its talk page. Hel-hama ( talk) 20:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I know you're already bored by this subject but please check out this edits (removing Briant-Kuhrt as source). -- 109.165.241.212 ( talk) 07:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope the same, but as you rightly said, I am extremely bored with this. I happen to thing that the endless Azeri vs. Persian nationalists turf war on Wikipedia is disgraceful and an imposition of the patience and the resources of the community. I really wish these people would take their grievances elsewhere. I known this isn't going to happen any time soon, so when questioned I just tend to express my disgust with these editors and leave it at that. -- dab (đł) 11:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paul_Bedson you made a fairly lengthy comment in your endorsement to the view from Mangoe. It's usually best to keep an endorsement short -- many editors just list their name with no additional words -- and to place comments like this in a "view by" section. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You have my permission to move the comment if you like. In fact you also have my permission to collapse it into a diff link, or hide it in a collapsible box, whatever you feel makes the page more tidy. -- dab (đł) 11:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Difficulty of learning languages is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Difficulty of learning languages until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The ChampionMan 1234 02:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Great to see you active again. I'm confused by an old edit of yours. Can you explain what exactly is dubious here? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 04:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I reverted an edit which introduced blatant nonsense, and by reverting to the earlier revision, I noted that some claims which had been in there were themselves doubtful, or at least unreferenced. I think it is possible there is a 14th century RV manuscript, but I cannot vouch for it. Likewise, it is possible that the printing press was introduced to India in the 16th century, but I find the claim dubious. The burden of establishing such things as factual would lie with the people making them. Also, even if there was a printing press in 16th-century India, it would have been introduced by the Mughals, and it would certainly not have been used to print Vedic texts. I think the sentence is just a vandalized version of something I had written, that with the introduction of the printing press by the British in the 19th century, it also became possible to print the RV. It was printed, by MĂŒller, in the 19th century. Whether there had been a printing press used by the Muslim rulers during earlier times is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article.
I have learned to be extremely skeptical of every minute change to this article. It seems that it is a favourite target of certain people, I must assume Indians, or at least Americans who identify as expatriate Indians, who do not have the first clue about the topic and simply fiddle with a few numbers as they see fit. The result is a misleading article, because the prose still radiates authority (because it was written by people who knew about the topic) but still wrong (because the figures have been messed with). -- dab (đł) 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you please have your say in the split discussion about Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples created by you ? In case of split can you start the issued article ? Happy new year. Nedim ArdoÄa ( talk) 10:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I rv'd your changes to Luo languages. The Ethn. list is completely messed up: half of those aren't even Nilotic languages. â kwami ( talk) 21:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
yeah ok, I admit that SIL was my only guide in this. You know what you are doing, I hope. -- dab (đł) 14:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dbachmann,
Is there are verification/source as to what is said in Wikipedia artice "Apris" is true? I would like to use the name for something big...
Thanks, Tamir. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.213.214 ( talk) 21:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It's basically what's in Monier-Williams. The source is Sayana. I didn't check the details. -- dab (đł) 10:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I did some quick research. The existence of 12 Apris is mentioned by Sayana, in the late 14th century. The enumeration of 10 Aprisuktas is due to Gargya Narayana, with roughly the same date as Sayana. The existence of various Apris for various schools (but no fixed number) is mentioned earlier, already in shrauta-sutra literature. I assume that they aren't saying that there are exactly 12, or 10, Apris or Aprisuktas. They are saying that each gotra could basically pick their own. I assume this was like a bit like a "tartan", a clan symbol which developed in the final centuries BCE with the emergence of the early Hindu gotra system. If you had a gotra, you could go and pick a hymn to Agni as your own Aprisukta. -- dab (đł) 11:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, Tamir, before you use the name "Apris" for "something big" (like a company name? or just a tattoo?) just try to talk somebody who knows about this. Be aware that "Apris" is just the anglicized plural. The Sanskrit plural is Äpryas, from an older (Vedic) Äpriyas. -- dab (đł) 12:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Your comments would be useful at WP:RSN#Conference presentation as source in article on Ayurveda. I also note that Ratha, an article you edited, now has some very pov language in it. And sources without page numbers - not sure if you have any of the sources. Dougweller ( talk) 08:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Claims about an age of 10000 years of the Vedas do not need to be discussed because they are in no way serious. You can argue about Bronze Age dates, as the Vedas hark back to the Bronze age (although the bulk dates to hte Iron Age). Arguing a Neolithic date is out of the question. Arguing a Mesolithic or Paleolithic date is simply bizarre, you could as well argue it was two billion years old for all the difference it would make to the sanity of the claim. People come up with stupid shit all the time, and it cannot be our responsiblity to react it all. Randy in Boise. -- dab (đł) 09:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Law of One is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. InShaneee ( talk) 03:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It is clear from your recent involvement with Kouroukan Fouga that you have a strong personal opinion against the authenticty of the document, and that you express distaste that any Subsaharan ruler such as Sundiata Keita could establish a supreme law or constitution as long ago as 1236 and be preserved by griots. Not surprisingly, an anonymous IP soon reverted to the previous version (which is actually not at all a copyvio as you claim) before you had turned it upside-down, per BRD. I am very disappointed to see where you then responded by resorting to your admin toolbox, and locked the page on your POV version. I thought at least this should have been performed by an uninvolved admin. Other admins do not even do this, what gives you the right to? Let us all please improve the article with due process. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 16:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
so you admit you were the anonymous editor? Or how are you suggesting semiprotection "locked" the version? And what "pov"? The removal of blatant copyright violation? Or how is the verbatim reproduction of two pages of English text published in 2004 (or 1998) not a copyvio? Care to explain that? I know you tend to be working against the project goals, but this is going a little bit far in terms of admitting to your agenda, don't you think? -- dab (đł) 06:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
A personal dispute with an IP adress? Over what? Over whether it is ok to vandalise Wikipedia?
Ok, if you like, I used semiprotection to "resolve" a "personal dispute" with an IP adress over the question whether they should vandalize Wikipedia. This is exactly what the protection tool is for in the first place. Are you happy now? Then please leave me alone. Yes, complain to ANI over my reluctance to allow vandalism and copyright violation, I am sure this will be the next great wikiscandal. -- dab (đł) 14:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I like the thrust of your The Law of One improvements and made a comment here Talk:The_Law_of_One#Changes_by_Dbachmann. Your insults hurt my feelings but I recognize the merit of your edits that I never got to see because they were reverted. Bilbobagginsesprecious ( talk) 17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean to insult you. I seriously did not believe it possible that you were serious about suggesting your article for inclusion. For all in the world it looked like you were making fun of Wikipedia. If you are serious about editing, perhaps you should practice with uncontroversial articles, such as neglected articles on minor settlements. There is no way that "The Law of One" is going to be accepted and left alone in its current state. It will either be deleted or else radically cut down in content and scope. "The Law of One" is only of interest inasmuch it contributed to some notable effect such as the "2012 phenomenon" hysteria. As such, it can easily be treated briefly in a paragraph in another article. If you want to keep a standalone article on this thing, you'll need to tread more carefully. -- dab (đł) 09:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems I misinterpreted your edits on The Law of One. My apologies. -- Neoconfederate ( talk) 19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I am not sure what you mean, but in any case I am done with the topic, I decided it was not worth my time fighting over properly representing a cranky topic such as this. I need to learn to be more relaxed about Wikipedia containing crap in content areas that do not a lot of damage and focus on fixing the more urgent problems first. -- dab (đł) 09:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I see you asked: "Why a secret society would need a promotional website is anyone's guess."
I think this man might have the answer:
"What's the point of being the world's top secret agent if you can't tell anyone?"
(I've not been paying much attention to Wikipedia recently, but I checked out your contributions yesterday and that comment of yours was the funniest thing I've read round here for quite some time).
Cheers,
-- Folantin ( talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Dbachmann. Do you believe the site is a megalithic observatory? -- Ghirla -ŃŃŃĐż- 12:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea. Possibly? To be treated with reservation, as the Bosnian pyramids teach us, people in this region are very easily enthused about their prehistory? The UNESCO "World Heritage Site" may confer notability, but certainly not credibility. It is a disgrace how this organization lets itself be abused for nationalist political games. They will just put stuff on their lists if they realize people would really like to be on that list. -- dab (đł) 12:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I figured out the original publications now. I am not saying they are wrong, or this isn't an observatory. I am just saying I have learned to be very suspicious when local patriots discover something like that, and after ten years, there are still exactly two men who are excited by it and keep publishing stuff about "Ancient Secrets". -- dab (đł) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
More on Mr. Cenev, based on the photographs in this document I must say I am not sure if the entire thing isn't an elaborate Rorschach test. But what really makes me wonder about the qualifications of this Gorje Cenev is the description of the "coordinates of the markers" for summer solstice at Kokino and Stonehenge:
Stonehenge | Kokino | 2000 BC |
23,9° | 23,9° | 23,9° |
What on earth does this even mean? What is the "coordinate" of solstice? Does he mean the compass direction of the sunrise? But why "2000 BC"? Does he think that the direction of sunrise depends on the astronomical epoch? It does not, it depends on your geographical latitude. On the polar circle, the direction of sunrise on summer solstice is 0°, true north, no matter if you live in 2000 BC or 2000 AD. So why should he point out that his angle is identical to the one at Stonehenge? Stonehenge is at 51N, and Kokino is at 42N. According to sollumis.com, on 21 June:
"There is very good compliance of the results" indeed.
This looks for all in the world as if Mr. Cenev had read the 1963 report on Stonehenge he cites, learned that he must find an angle of 23,9° somewhere, and then went and did find this angle. Maybe I am misreading this, but then what in the world is this thing about "coordinates of solstice markers", and what is measured by "23,9°" in both Stonehenge and Kokino? The sad thing is that I don't put it past UNESCO to put the site on the list without even bothering to look for such glaring problems in the "evidence" presented. -- dab (đł) 11:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Cenev:
Would you believe this guy is head of a planetarium? The figures may be correct, but the difference in declination is hardly "due to so called precession". It is due, if correct, to a change in axis tilt, apparently by less than half a degree. Regarding azimuth and altitude ("height"), he doesn't express himself clearly, but I take it he is simply describing sunrise as seen from the "sky watcher central position" of his obervatorium. The h parameter is then just a function of what the horizon looks like from that spot, and the A parameter the associated azimuth. I still have no idea what the "23,9°" "coordinate" is supposed to be. My impression is that this guy does not really know what he is talking about. And he is the big astronomy expert trying to convince the UNESCO this is an observatory.
So, it isn't my job to review his stuff, and the site has notability in any case just as a Bronze Age settlement, but my impression is that the whole observatory thing is very, very dubious, and probably little more than the hobby-horse of Mr. Cenev. -- dab (đł) 14:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I figured out what this is about. He is trying to date the site by determining
axis tilt.
"coordinate of solstice" is just an oblique way of saying "axis tilt".
His 23,9° figure is the same as his 23° 54â 05â. He is therefore claiming to be able to measure the alignment of his observatory to an accuracy of 6â difference in axis tilt. This would require a precision of less about one or two arc minutes in the actual alignment. This is theoretically possible, but you would need an alignment of two notches, you cannot just observe one notch from a "central position".
According to out axis tilt article,
"According to mathematical calculations", I take this to yield 23.99 for 2000 BC, 23.84 for 1000 BC and 23.7 for 0AD/BC. Using this to date an alignment of some notches in a jagged landscape requires fantastic precision, and I would like to see some error bars on that. -- dab (đł) 07:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Sowlos. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Wheel of the Year seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you. â
Sowlos
18:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Template:Paganism (contemporary). Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Your edit appeared to be more of a
'hostile takeover' by WP:COI editor
than the uncontroversial move you reverted. Please refrain from attacking other editors and please consider heading to the talk page before altering the naming scheme of an article series. You may respond at the
talk page if you have any further disagreements or concerns. â
Sowlos
18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I presumed Peter Joseph is notable because he has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. 4 millions of notability reasons â Preceding unsigned comment added by Magomandrake ( talk âą contribs) 13:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The question is, does his biography have notability beyond his WP:1E association with the " Zeitgeist Movement". Obviously, he is notable enough to be discussed within the "Zeitgeist" article. The question is, just how many article about him should we carry? I see no notability sufficient for "standalone" coverage. This is more than suggested by the brevity of his "biography" article, which does not have more substance than what could be covered in a brief paragraph at the main "Zeitgeist" page. -- dab (đł) 13:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dbachmann. I need to be able to use inline hieroglyphs for some pages I'm working on. I noticed that you proposed a div workaround on the page Help:WikiHiero syntax. But as may be seen from the example given, as well as my own poor attempts, it doesn't work, or perhaps no longer works. Do you have any other ideas about how to achieve an inline hieroglyph or hieroglyph group? Any suggestions would be extremely welcome!! Thanks-- NfrHtp ( talk) 14:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
His Holiness, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
AJ Kirwin (
talk)
15:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't take this as in any way polemic. It is not at all intended as such. I just think that you might be interested in this article. Esoglou ( talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
well thank you, I do not see what could be polemic about this link, but is there anything in particular you wanted to draw my attention to? As far as I can see, Wikipedia has already much deeper coverage than what is on that page, and these day journalistic pieces are more often than not actually based on Wikipedia. I know I would base my stuff on Wikipedia if I was an under-paid journalist. -- dab (đł) 08:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is there a discrepancy between the article title "Weringerode" and the lead sentence ("Wernigerode")? -- AnonMoos ( talk) 19:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It's just a typo. -- dab (đł) 09:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Several years ago you inserted a reference to Wetergaard, without a title or anything else. Would you please complement?
I can comment if you can show me the diff. I have made some 2E+5 edits over the years, and I cannot remember them all. I imagine it will be apparent from the context, perhaps the same work was cited elsewhere on the page. -- dab (đł) 17:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In case you are referring to the current footnote 7,
which may well have been inserted by me several years ago, I have to say,
But perhaps my sarcasm is misplaced and you are referring to something entirely different. Then please show me the diff. -- dab (đł) 17:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Witch Hunt Barnstar |
Thanks for your help improving kindins, reiks, megistane, albruna, waluburg and other witchcraft. Tuurngait ( talk) 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
Well, Doug, perhaps the articles could indeed have been merged instead of deleted. The VarĂ°lokkur page consisted of this
Now, this isn't an "article", but it could very well become a paragraph in Saga of Erik the Red, or in some article on Old Norse magic ( Seidhr etc.), or it could be dumped on wiktionary, which lacking the word. No, of course we shouldn't stoop to spending time discussing a guy who calls people "institutionalized racist", but this doesn't mean we need to go out of our way to lose relevant content. -- dab (đł) 06:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I wondered whether you could elucidate on your assertion that this seal is a fake? I have no access to MacAndrew's work, though I am presently ordering a copy, and the googlebooks link does not allow access to page 141 which according to the index discusses seals. Certainly the seal of the 1st Earl of Douglas's son, James Douglas, 2nd Earl of Douglas and Mar, is in the Gelre Armorial, and is the same, excepting the Mar quarterings. Regards. Brendandh ( talk) 09:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, google books displays p. 141 for me, I don't know what they base this difference in access on. I can send you a screenshot if you like, but of course I also do not have access to the entire book.
McAndrews calls it "a dubious seal" and explains "The seal's complexity, with two ordinaries juxtaposed, makes it very questionable." He doesn't go into further detail, as the seal is not his present focus on that page.
Do you have a link to an image of the Douglas arms in the Gelre Armorial? Should be fol. 64v. -- dab (đł) 10:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Not a particularly good one, but it is here: [21] No. 288. You have to flick through quite a few pages! Brendandh ( talk) 11:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No. 288 (plate 51). You are right, the drawing corresponds exactly to File:Blason Douglas-Mar.svg (and File:Seal of 2nd Earl of Douglas.jpg), at least as far as the Douglas coa is concerned. This is interesting to me. So if McAndrew is right, the William Douglas seal could not have been "faked" more than 20 or 30 years after William's death. -- dab (đł) 11:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the seal that McAndrew is referring to as dubious
I think rather than this one
. The problem with the first is the fess chequy below the chief.
Brendandh (
talk)
09:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I am grateful you took the trouble to double-check this. I will look into it again over the coming week. But I really appreciate it, it bugs me when I make mistakes like this. --
dab
(đł)
15:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)