archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi dab. I would like to include an original (i.e. self-made) image in the article Pforzen buckle and add some sourced information on the academic discussion regarding the inscription itself. Please take a look at my talk page to see the image and leave any comments that come to mind. Thanks in advance. Varoon Arya 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. As to my sources, there were two: (1) A hand-drawn image in the book Runenkunde (K. Düwel, 2001, p. 19), which he had taken from Volker Babucke's Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen - Aspekte der Deutung (1999. p. 17); (2) A copyrighted photo from the chronico site (http://chronico.de/erleben/wissenschaft/0000297/). In response to your suggestion, do you think something like "cf. Düwel 2001" would suffice, granting that the book is listed in the literature section? Varoon Arya 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added what I see to be important information and would appreciate if you could give the article as it stands a quick read-through. Also, could you point me in the right direction for changing the rune images to an appropriate unicode font? (If so, please respond on the Pforzen buckle talk page). Thanks again. Varoon Arya 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no edits to any of the above articles DAB you accused me of.

My contributions that i make to other articles are in good faith and of good quality. Please check what your saying. And i demand an apology.

My edit weas concerning this article's suggesting, in a matter of fact manner, that Serbs and Croats are partly descended from Iranic peoples. All i wanted to clarify was that such an idea is merely a theory, mostly based on the derivation of the names Serb and Croat themselves.

RE: the scythians. i edited the article's genetics section only, not the 'descent' section. My aim was to state that haplogroups do not represent specific ethnicities or tribes. You just shortened what i said and took all the credit. That's OK, i am big man.

Hxseek 09:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

true, the offending edits date from 10 July and were introduced by an anon [1]. You still expanded on them. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I see where i was wrong sorry about all that. I have just been mad lately and i had no reason to take that out on you. Shawnpoo 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that my edit was rather drastic (and occasionally facetious) but I don't think that it warranted a full revert without an edit comment. Would you perhaps like to tell me what it was you felt was wrong with it, so I may work on it again?

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I thought it was vandalism. Why did you remove the categories? No article should remain uncategorised. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see from its talk page, it was about time for the article to be edited to stop uncritically using the label as the name of an ethnic group. The first category was specifically created to include members of this fictitious "Bantu people", and the second one was a specific ethnic group category, so they both had to go as neither was appropriate.

Actually, the discussion on the talk page is quite insightful and convincing, so I still don't understand why no one just went ahead and fixed it (which is what I tried to do).

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dab, I am still having the old dispute over the House of Munsö with user:Pieter Kuiper. He wants to remove stuff, while I want to keep in things that I find interesting. Please, join the discussion and give your opinion.--Berig 16:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. --dab (𒁳) 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dieter :).--Berig 12:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to rename the existing article Dutch folklore as "Folklore of the Low Countries" to be consistent with what we did to rename Dutch mythology. However I am not able to delete the redirect Folklore of the Low Countries as I am not an admin. Are you able to delete that redirect so we can move the article there? ThanksGoldenrowley 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. What are your thoughts on the "Mythology" article? --dab (𒁳) 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for the help today! Since you asked me, I think the lowlands "mythology" is pretty good it has a B right now and I dont like the idea of merging it to "continental germanic mythology", but I do wish to see contintal german mythology discuss things in broad terms, with links to lowlands the alps, the black forest, etc. I was in the region recently and the peple mentioned the mythology of "the regions" of the Rhine, Holland, and the black forest it seems to be common mainstream idea that regions can have myths. Today I've added and clarify the reference list substaintially. In addition, Wikipedia Netherlands has an article on Friesland mythology that mentions some Friesland-specific research that may be worth reading and adding. Goldenrowley 07:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do this myself, but gave up too soon. Your crop is a job well done. Thanks!Kmarinas86 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any time available on or following Tuesday, your input regarding which citations are sufficient to substantiate existing content on the Ebionites page and which are not would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 16:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: If you think that you would have any comments you would like to make at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Evidence or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Workshop, I would encourage you to do so. You are one of the few "outside" parties who has already perused the discussion, and I believe your input as a non-biased outsider may well be very useful. Thanks again for all your work. John Carter 15:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that quite independent of questions of reliability of Eisenman's book itself, it has become clear that Michael C. Price's approach to giving citations for his claims is problematic (if not outright fraudulent). I think it would be only fair to remove the contested bits from the article for the time being, and ask Michael C. Price to present references to the satisfaction of other editors on talk first, and add his claims to the live article only after he has done that. It is unfair on the editors who have brought the article to FA status to tear it apart in this way now. Regarding Eisenman, I have created the separate James the Brother of Jesus (book) article so that the content of Eisenman's position can be worked out there, in isolation, beforehand, and once it is formulated in a stable way, the parts relevant to the Ebionites could be imported to the Ebionites article. dab (𒁳) 09:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about ArbCom possibly being less than necessary at this point. Unfortunately, the petition was filed a few days before you were first contacted; they just now got to the point of deciding to take the case. I honestly don't know if the process can be stopped once it's started, even if the matter is resolved in the interim. If we can resolve the matter, however, I think that they would probably be willing to let it go without making a formal decision. The one major advantage which might arise from it, maybe, is a decision on possibly limiting problematic editors' contributions. Unfortunately, like I said, I don't have a clue what happens in situations like this. John Carter 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry about it. In my experience, the arbcom will likely just churn on this for a month or two, and then issue a few half-hearted admonishments. There is no evidence of blatant misbehaviour that would require any harsh measures. I would just recommend investing more energies into actually building the article than in compiling evidence for the arbitration case. regards, --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the disputed content to the talk page per agreement with the majority of editors. Please keep the page on your watchlist for reverts by Michael Price. Ovadyah 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question about the use of CE on the article talk page. Ovadyah 15:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann, as you are probably aware, the Ebionites article failed in FAR. However, the arbitration case against Michael Price is proceeding, and the parties to the dispute have presented most of their initial evidence. I have introduced a proposed finding of fact on the workshop page here and a proposed remedy, along with my reasoning for this resolution to the conflict. If you care to add your independent voice to the proceedings, this would probably be a good time to do it. Ovadyah 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peddling his own stuff, here and here. rudra 16:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this one appears comparatively reasonable, but of course he cannot cite his own blog as a source. This seems to be more vanity than pov pushing (remember Mr. Zed?). --dab (𒁳) 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, more vanity than POV. But he seems oblivious and intent on self-promotion. His site has no working links, and his stuff is not published, but "likely" to be published. Hokay... rudra 00:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you deleted my Eastern Hemisphere maps from several articles. You said the maps were placed on seemingly random pages and shouldn't be on articles that concern the timeperiod of 500AD. Why? I believe the maps not only depict the borders of the article subject in question, but they also depict the world they lived in.

Take the Visigoth article, for example. The two maps currently on the page don't show any significant information about the Visigoth's world. Bare mention of their neighbors (but no borders), nothing showing Visigoth borders after the Franks took Aquitaine, and nothing showing the areas reconquered by the Romans in the 500s. Deleting the maps from that article effectively cuts readers short on some great information that helps further their understanding of the Visigoths and their world.

Additionally, I didn't place the maps on random pages; I placed them on articles that pertain to peoples and nations that are in the maps. Some of those articles had no other maps whatsoever, so readers leave without any visual understanding of where the subjects even were.

I appreciate your constructive criticism regarding how the maps can be improved to focus more on the individual subject (like coloring the nation referred to in that particular article). However, just creating these maps takes an immense amount of time and research as they are. Perhaps some day I'll get the chance to do as you suggest. But until then, these maps will have to do.

Please undo your reversions and put the maps back on the pages you removed them from. Thank you in advance, User:Talessman Thomas Lessman 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, there is room for disagreement, I suppose, but I take it I am not the only editor to be less than thrilled with your maps. If the current maps don't show all the "Visigoth's world" (allthough I fail to see what part is missing from Image:Visigoth migrations.jpg), adding a map of all of Eurasia, Africa, Oceania and Australia isn't much of an improvement. dab (𒁳) 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Visigoths: "not any significant information"
• 
  nah...
• 
  a little bit better
• 
  the bigger picture

I respectfully disagree with you and believe the maps should be re-instated on the pages. It really does help visitors to Wikipedia get a better understanding of the subjects they are reading about. Also gives them ideas of other articles to read. What other editors have a problem with the map?

Respectful disagreements aside, your illustration above was pretty funny, I've got to hand it to you! Do you have an "even bigger picture"? lol! Thomas Lessman Thomas Lessman 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do not want to appear rude. I appreciate your effort. I just happen to think your maps need more work. This is the opinion of a single editor. Another editor who objected to them is Jacob Haller (talk · contribs). What are my concerns? First, you need to crop them to something useful. It is simply pointless to show a thumbnail including Australia and South Africa for 500 AD. Look at the thumbnail above: There is litterally nothing to be made out except a topographic map of the eastern hemisphere. Then, these are supposed to be political maps, but their content is practically obscured by colourful topography and bathygraphy. have a look at Image:The world in 500 CE.PNG for a map of the world in AD 500 that is useful as a thumbnail. Also review the other examples in commons:Category:Maps_of_the_world_showing_history and commons:Category:Maps showing history. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Bezüglich des Löschantrages zu diesem Bild: Melanom hat das Bild nicht wegen der unklaren Beziehung zwischen dir und Roelli zum Löschen vorgeschlagen (der Teil lässt sich leicht durch ein OTRS-Ticket beheben), sondern wegen der Beziehung zwischen Roelli und dem Maler des Chakras, der ja die Rechte an dem Bild besitzt (siehe derivative work). Nun geh ich davon aus, dass das Chakra uralt (also der Maler vor über 70 Jahren gestorben ist), weshalb ich auch für behalten gestimmt habe, aber vielleicht würde es helfen, wenn du die Infobox beim Bild mit ein paar Details vervollständigen würdest, zB wo das Chakra ist, wann es circa gemalt wurde, usw. -- CecilK 08:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

achso. na dann, also dieses Chakra ist bestimmt mittelalterlich, und urheberrechtlich problemlos. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent work (now I pray it sticks) on the dystheism/misotheism article. I also hope I put the Barnstar in an acceptible place, if not I apologize. LoveMonkey 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I am not done yet, though, and help is welcome :) --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might want to have a look at the discussion about the use of Category:User als-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to your posting at WP:COIN. You are in the best position to advise what to do next. You might also ask questions about the sourcing at WP:RSN, if you are so inclined. But there are probably grounds for an AfD nomination, provided enough people were interested in actually looking at the article. Occasionally some editors at the COI noticeboard will actually work over an article to remove POV and make it neutral, though they might find this one puzzling. If you do decide on AfD, it is not considered canvassing to announce that on the noticeboard. I will also notify User:Bkobres of the COIN listing. EdJohnston 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! For your information Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright now dab we aint done yet. I think we can cover a break down of the various miso-s against the God or the Gods in the Misotheism article-conceptionally. I have listed on the talkpage some of the core arguments (only partially articulated). I was hoping for some help (aka critical observation). LoveMonkey 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I answered your remark in my own talk page, as usual. Švitrigaila 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding my reading list. Have a barnstar. --Ancheta Wis 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you -- it's not that I've seen the book myself, though... --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Chaldean Cathlics, it must be terrible for them to use a Chaldo-Assyrian flag. I can only imagine the pain and resentment they feel by Assyrian nationalist labelling them as Assyrians, if it weren't for the fact that they themselves are Assyrian nationalist. Case in point, don't take this anti-Assyrian "source" as the holy truth, it's not like there are just a few Assyrian nationalists in the Syriac and Chaldean churches, we're talking about a majority here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:32 10 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

what are you even talking about? friesian.com (Kelley L. Ross) is completely neutral, and just like me stumbled over this childish issue because some indoctrinated kids were giving him grief. If you go out of your way to discuss how Ross is "wrong" on my talkpage, at least let me know how he is wrong. --dab (𒁳) 13:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral? Please. He knows nothing about this at all. It's obvious, even from his writing, that he has based a lot of what he has written on hearsay from his students, not actual facts. I agree with you that this dispute is very childish, but it's not us Assyrians who are ignorant about the facts. And by the way, he stated that modern Chaldean Catholics are direct descendants from the ancient Chaldeans. LOL. Yeah, isn't it funny, how the Chaldean Neo-Aramaic isn't even related to the old Chaldean Aramaic spoken in Babylon, and that virtually ALL Chaldean Catholics are from northern Mesopotamia, not southern Mesopotamia, and that we call the language Sōreth? Look, Ross isn't NPOV. He is totally POV about this, and he even admits himself he's not an expert on the subject. Have you read his old version by the way? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:20 10 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

you bore me, Elias. You are one of the most ideologically entrenched editors I've met, and you keep giving out judgements about "NPOV", apparently unaware of how grotesque this looks to any bystander. --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:33 10 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPADE I am afraid. I promise I will also applaud you ad hominem, should you manage to be reasonable. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with you, dab, is that you don't know anything about this subject, yet you act as if you do, by self-proclaiming yourself as "Mr. NPOV" but you still don't understand the subject because you haven't done enough research about it (obviously). Then when you have no answers left, you begin calling me stuff, as if it wasn't beside the point. Look, if you don't understand this subject, stop trying to act like an authority on it and respect the sources we are providing, unless you have better sources rejecting the validity of these historical sources. If you don't have academic serious sources presenting a real case, then stop accusing me of POV issues because you have no case whatsoever. And please, don't resort to lame ad hominem attacks on my character. That's really not helping your credibility. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:36 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

At least I understand Wikipedia policy. If you can present solid references for your claims ("large majority", "started 30-40 years ago", I'll be satisfied. What you are trying to do is waving around some references for one thing, and try to sneak in claims that have nothing to do with your reference. We are reporters. As long as you just accurately report what is in your sources we'll have no dispute. dab (𒁳) 06:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? Well then, I'll get back to you with sources. It would help a lot if you presented what kind of issues you want cited (a bit more specific) so that I know what to look for, instead of just reverting back and forth. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:49 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you to be collaborative. I have no interest in wasting time with editors who deliberately play dumb when challenged. Before you can address an objection, you have to make a minimal attempt at understanding its justification: this is what we mean by "editing in good faith". --dab (𒁳) 07:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the guy what stuff he wants cited, he responds by accusing me of playing dumb, and then he tells me I'm not collaborative enough. Dude, you're not the collaborative person here. Again, what do you want cited, be specific. If you reply with anything more about me personally, then you are the one who isn't collaborative here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:45 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I hope you aren't telling me you are not playing dumb. That would be disturbing indeed... Try to revisit Talk:Assyrian people and try to make sense of what Akhilleus and I have been trying to tell you then. If you cannot understand, try to get somebody to explain things to you. Maybe try a mentor at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. --dab (𒁳) 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodging the question as usual. Well dab, I guess this means you don't want more sources cited. The problem with you and Akhilleus, is that you are totally beside the point. Selucid rule? Why is that even important to this issue? Why did you bring that up? It's not that I'm playing dumb, you are simply beside the point on this topic, and you don't know what you're talking about. That is why you have problem with this chart, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because you are focusing on the wrong issues. If you're going to bring up Selucid rule OUT OF NOWHERE, then you better explain WHY that is so important to include in the chart and why Selucid rule is related to this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:58 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you are the one pushing a pov. If you are happy to shut up, I am happy to hear no more sources cited. If you insist on continuing to push it, you will have to cite sources. It's simple. It's Wikipedia policy. Why are we having this discussion? 600 years of Seleucid and Sassanid rule is what is being ignored in your propaganda "timeline" at Image:Assyrianidentity.png. I will not discuss this any more. Redraw this chart properly, or stop wasting my time with it. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under Sassanid rule, we were known as Assyrians, as proven by Asuristan. Under Seleucid rule we were known as Syrians.[2][3] That is the entire reason why the chart says "Roman/Greek/Persian rule ultimately changes Assyrian to Syrian", if you want me to redraw the chart and include these periods more specifically, I can do that, but then you'll just bring up something else to complain about. Calling it propaganda is so disingenuous of you. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:46 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I am complaining about graphical distortion. Draw the chart to scale, and record ancient and medieval instances of aramaye alongside instances of suryaye. That's the long and short of it. --dab (𒁳) 08:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find me credible sources about aramaya alongside suryaya, not taken from aramnahrin/urhoy, I will include it, if you can cite it properly. I disregard everything written on those two sites, because they manipulate the content. Here's an example, can you find this quote in real documents? No, you can't. You only find it on urhoy. If you want to help out with sources, that is fine. Just bring me genuine sources, and I will include them into the equation. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:56 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

fine. I can verify, for example, whether the Lexicon Syriacum has "aturaye: enemies" as they allege. I can tell you that if I find the reference is correct, I will be annoyed with your biased pedantry. If I find that they are wrong, I will obviously treat the rest of their references with more circumspection. Either way, the facts are

1. the Syriacs are divided into factions.
2. some call themselves "Aramaeans", some "Syrians", some even "Assyrians" (Aturaye)
3. you don't like this and would like to see them united under an "Assyrian" identity

your ideal may be very worthy, I have no opinion on that. What is non-negotiable is that Wikipedia will report on the fact that the Syriacs are divided, not on your utopia that they should not be. I am sorry they are divided, Elias, but Wikipedia is not the place to change this. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fine. I can verify, for example, whether the Lexicon Syriacum has "aturaye: enemies" as they allege. — What are you talking about now? I can only find one quote about Lexicon Syriacum here and it has nothing to do with "aturaye: enemies". I can tell you that if I find the reference is correct, I will be annoyed with your biased pedantry. — I'm not biased. I can't find most of their quotes anywhere else, except their own site. Not even when I change Syriacs to Syrians and search again, can I find their quotes reproduced from other sites with more credibility.

Do you sometimes even look at the sites you diss? the suryoyo-oromoyo site has lexicografen Hassan Bar Bahlul (900-talet) skrev i sin syriska ordlista "atouraya = b, eldbaba" dvs "assyrier = fiende" -- this is a straightforward reference, and can be checked objectively in any edition of the Lexicon Syriacum. Their other references are equally straightforward. I don't know why you claim they make them up, have you verified any of them and found them incorrect? dab (𒁳) 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for the references by Herodotus, Strabo and Justinus found on Assyrianist sites, I find them on sites that pass WP:RS. You call this biased? I am obviously following what makes more sense. The alleged quotes I don't find anywhere except Urhoy and Aramnahrin, should I trust that? No, of course not. On the other hand, the quotes from Assyrianist sites I find on other reliable sites, makes a lot more sense.

1. Yes, I have never denied that we are divided. Even Simo Parpola acknowledges this in his article (page 18).
2. Yes, that is represented in the chart. Why are you pointing this out? That exists in the chart already.
3. Of course, just like some Aramaeanists want to unite us under the Aramaean identity.

The reason why we're not buying into the Aramaean identity is because neither Chaldean Catholics, nor Church of the East (Nestorians), have ever cared about an Aramaean identity. Not even amongst themselves (i.e. the Syriac Orthodox Christians) is the Aramaean identity that popular and meets lots of resistance from Assyrian nationalists within their own Church (same story with Chaldean Catholics). The Assyrian identity is the largest within all of our Syriac Churches. So it's obviously the closest identity at hand. Now, the chart in itself, is simply reporting on all our identities. It is simply reflecting the reality of it: the Assyrian identity is the largest one if we exclude that we're all Syriacs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:42 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

By the way: some call themselves "Aramaeans", some "Syrians", some even "Assyrians" (Aturaye) — Those who call themselves Aramaeans always call themselves Aramaeans together with Syrians (or Syriacs). They never call themselves Aramaeans only. They are also Suryoyo. For instance, you can watch the Aramaeanists in Sweden, shrieking Suryoye here. Their team is called Syrianska. The Assyrian faction is also Suryoyo. The only difference is that we are of the opinion that Suryoyo means Assurayu, whilst they think it means Oromoyo. Do you understand now how the situation is? And like Chaldean said, the Aramaeanists are mostly find in the diaspora, with some minor representation in the Middle East. That is why Aramaye is small in the chart. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:49 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

who is "we" and why should Wikipedia be interested in what "you" want? You can cover the Assyrian infighting by citing academic discussions, never mind what "you" think. Parpola's paper is a beginning, but Parpola discusses a question of etymology, and touches on this topic only in passing. Now I would really prefer to keep this childish discussion off my talkpage, and address the topics themselves, on the relevant article talkpages. No more "we", no more arguments from alleged insider knowledge, just WP:RS, ok? --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, one last response. "We" as in the Assyrian faction within the Syriacs (you know, the Assyrian faction which you think consists of me only). Parpola isn't just discussing a question of etymology. Anyway, have you verified that Lexicon Syriacum reference you were talking about? The only reference I've been able to find so far, outside of Urhoy, is this:

• Urhoy version: Aram had the Arameans, which the Greeks called Syriacs.[4]
• Actual version: Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians. Ashur lived at the city Nineve; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation, beyond others. Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans. Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians.[5]

See how they're manipulating the sources? They are taking it entirely out of context. They're using a Son of Shem representation as some historical fact. Their entire identity is based on religious faith, not historical accuracy. If you can't spot the Aramaeanist bias now, then you're not neutral. And for the record, the Greeks called the region which had been known as Aram, Syria, not the Aramaeans. The Greeks called the Assyrians, Syrians. Anyway, case in point: their "Aramaya" identity is false and based on misconception. Now we can continue this on the talk pages where it belongs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:32 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I don't read that suryoyo-oromoyo site. Its horrible colours hurt my eyes. What I've read from it though, is very laughable. It looks like some kid put it together (the Swedish content of it that is). Totally unacademic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:36 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

So how's it going, dab? Have you verified that Lexicon Syriacum reference yet? I decided to verify one of the alleged refs on the fanatical suryoyo-oromoyo site:

samma författare har ännu ett citat i sitt verk Geografi (bok 1 kap2 nr34): "De som kallar sig arameer de kallar vi för syrier"

They're asserting that that Strabo (who called the Assyrians "Syrians," in Book 1, Chapter 2, Number 34, stated that "those who call themselves Aramaeans, we call them Syrians." Well, it just so happens that I can't find this alleged quote. Don't take my word for it though, look it up yourself:

• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/1B1*.html (Book 1, Chapter 2 begins from Number 38)
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/1A*.html (Book 1, Chapter 1, number 34, no such things as either Aramaeans or Syrians).

I still wonder why you think I'm POV, when I'm actually, in fact, NPOV, who don't buy Benne's and other Oromoyo fanatics' bullshit. Any Aramaeanist site from now on, should not pass WP:RS. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:31 14 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that suryoyo-oromoyo uses the exact same rhetoric as Benne does, calling Syria = Assyria a "disputed theory". It seems to me, the Oromoyo fanatics, are using some sort of propaganda which they're indoctrinating each other with. Either way, their false propaganda has no place on Wikipedia, because it's not the least academic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:36 14 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

On 10 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--IvoShandor 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least one of the qualifications for the User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle. If you could point toward any GA and FA work you've had, I would be more than happy to nominate you. John Carter 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I am pretty much boycotting the "GA" bureaucracy, and I honestly don't know if I have any official "GAs" under my belt. Under "FA", there is at least JRRT, and perhaps one or two others. --dab (𒁳) 17:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During your 2-day editing frenzy of the 'Tyr' page you removed my pronunciation because it was "English". We are looking at an English website and unless you can provide the "Natural" pronunciation I'd prefer it if you allow my pronunciation (rhymes with tier) to stay. You may also just add the "Natural" pronunciation and leave the "English" one with a note indicating that it's "English". Thank you very much. ·:RedAugust 23:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what frenzy? Why would we give pronunciation hints for English words? Precisely because this is an English language website, we need to give pronunciation for words that are not English, not for those that are. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you had moved off the translations and texts, quite right, but when those articles were written these texts were not in wikisource. Did you send them there, or have they just gone into buried wikipedia? I wouldn't know how to send them there myself, but perhaps someone else had already supplied similar. Cheers, Sedgefoot 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A new user User:Assary has started selectively expanding some of your wikilinks by copying and pasting parts of peoples of the Caucasus (along with the errors there) and Finno-Ugric peoples into the article. These selective additions have destroyed part of the internal logic of the page. I cannot reason with this user who seems to have some possibly nationalistic point to make. They seem intent on turning the article into a rambling list and somehow have not understood some of the cautious remarks in the original text. I have seen this copying-pasting approach before; it doesn't seem to be what the WP is about. Cheers, Mathsci 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, yes, this sort of thing should just be reverted. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I've noticed that you are active in articles dealing with Frankish and related history, and are a long-established Wikipedia editor. I wouldn't mind your input on the Salian Franks Mythology article - a gentleman by the name of Rokus wrote the article, and I tried not to step on his toes in a) avoiding editing his article myself, and b) giving him the titles of books by the most esteemed scholars of Frankish history today so that he himself could gain the knowledge that would enable a verifiable article (but I have clearly annoyed him greatly). What's the Wikipedia protocol for editing another's article in attempting to make it verifiable and more neutral? I'd appreciate your advice; I'm quite new to Wikipedia itself, and although I've expertise in the area of Frankish history, I understand that Wikipedia is a more co-operative effort than writing, for instance, for an established reference work. Thanks in advance - I have a feeling that my repeated requests for citations have driven Rokus to the brink of fury, but I was of the understanding that Wikipedia actually REQUIRES citations... And I really do feel that to call the article after Salian Franks is too narrow, with far too little information on just the Salian Franks as opposed to all Franks. I suppose I would like to feel that making this a cause is worth the hassle, as I don't believe Rokus is amenable to discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong, and it's only I who rub him the wrong way...? --Almirena 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rokus01 is well known as a national mysticist editor. The article should probably just be merged into Continental Germanic mythology. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vergina_sun.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Dharmic Religion page that was decided to be a disambig page by consensus is being re-instated once again. Sugest you have a look there.--Anish 06:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was just tidying up some of the indentation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion, and I noticed you had comments in a couple places; one advocating a speedy keep, and then further down suggesting that a merge might be better. Should the older opinion be annotated or struck out to help the closing admin? I didn't want to do something like that without speaking to you about it first. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afds are discussions, not votes. I react to opinions of other editors, trying to find the best solution. "speedy keep" does not preclude redirection. Redirection is not properly something that needs to go on Afd. It seems obvious that this article should not be deleted, but merged elsewhere, and I am confident the closing admin will come to a similar conclusion, this is really a no-brainer, if I may say so. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I'm guessing your feeling pretty frustrated with User:Muntuwandi, but I think he was asking an honest question. Was it really necessary to attack this user's analytical abilities? Wouldn't it be better to work with him/her? It is a major step forward that he is even asking the question "which parts" rather than just insisting that this is the "best" account. Egfrank 09:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I am not assuming bad faith, but I have little interest in patient debate once an editor has shown he is not on top of the topic he insists on debating. My harsh reaction was due to his revert warring over the article, not due to the question itself. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you have noticed, EliasAlucard continues to insert his erroneous and POV chart into the Assyrian people article. Since the deadlock has been going on for more than a year now, I believe an expert on the Syriac people should be consulted. I hope you support this suggestion, and request you to keep an eye out for the article. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 08:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, you really should look up what this guy is talking about. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:14 19 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Dab said: I will ask you once again, politely, to refrain from moving articles around without discussion, especially repeating moves that have been reverted before, or articles that have a history of discussion of the proper title. All you are doing is wasting other people's time. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your polite demeanor. Which articles are you talking about in particular? If you could clarify for me the salient points of discussion we may be able to yield a mutually satisfying resolution.

Respectfully B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You notice when you are reverted, don't you? Then click on the "talk" tab and explain yourself. If you fail to convince other editors, you may have to live with consensus being against you. You can try and build a separate Modern runic magic and discourse‎, but unless you cite solid literature, it will be put up for deletion on grounds of WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warning from Dharmic traditions

Dab said: your behaviour is deteriorating. Please don't copy-paste entire articles to my talkpage. Take your time to review Wikipedia:policy (and Wikipedia:Etiquette while you're at it), and try to avoid wasting the time of other editors. Pull your own weight. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have u read what I have included and sourced? The sources might not be print, but they are sourced. If they are not worked into a version acceptable to all parties I will continue to revert. I appreciate that pasting the entire article is not polite, but neither is deleting my referenced and cited work in a wholesale fashion.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are welcome to merge stuff from your version into Indian religions, respecting the existing revision and input and concerns from others. Why don't you go ahead and work on that quietly instead of annoying your peers? --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your lead. Conflict creates dialogue. QUESTION: how did u link to a specific version of an article? I would appreciating you learning me! Then I wouldn't need to paste the whole article in your Talk page.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are really serious about this aren't you? It is difficult to deal with the trolls, but the genuinely poor in spirit can be even more exasperating. Will you please leave stuff alone now and work on whatever it is you want to discuss? How about you learn about policy first? Then, about WP:ENC? Then, consult WP:RS on whatever you are interested in, and then come back and edit? I am not your private teacher, and I ask you once again to pull your own weight. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arrogance.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"arrogance" as in "asking you to respect project fundamentals"? Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. I am afraid that if you find WP is too elitist for you, you have very, very low standards of "elitism" compared to the world at large. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dyeus.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 12:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my remarks on talk page of Jainism and non-creationism with reference to your merge proposal.--Anish 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to seek informal mediation on the case. If you are interested the case is open at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-17 Origin of religion. Muntuwandi 16:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi, I consider myself fully competent, and it is really the same to me whether I discuss a given topic with you or a designated mediator. My position will be completely independent of whom I happen to be addressing. --dab (𒁳) 16:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an invitation, participation is voluntary. However we do need material available for mediation. So I have recreated the page. Muntuwandi 16:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do not recreate deleted pages like that. The active discussion is (and should be) on DRV. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see, and add to, the summarized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists concerning the Wikipedia:Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. I've tried discussion with individuals, the Village pump, an RfC, an email to enwiki-l, and contacting admins like Radiant, and admin Coredesat tried an AfD of [Lists of overviews], all to no avail. I'm out of ideas, and would really appreciate some help achieving rational consensus.

Placing some or all of those pages in any of the 3 suggested namespaces (main, project, portal) each has its own problems. It isn't simple! --Quiddity 17:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with the concerns raised at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists, and agree with you (if I understand your position) that List of overviews should be Wikipedia:Overview, and that Lists of topics and Lists of basic topics should also be in projectspace. What I don't agree with is trying to force discussion (or change?) by putting an article message box at the top of these pages, which is disconcerting to the reader (who is, and should be, unaware of internal disputes about where pages are located).

May I suggest starting with one page (perhaps the Overview), and proposing (on the talk page) that it be moved, and see what kind of response you get? (I don't think "consistency across the entire navbar" is a winning argument, by the way; that's why I think a page-by-page discussion is better.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand. {{ambox}}es are found on literally tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of pages, and they have the straightforward function of informing the reader of an ongoing debate. Placing an ambox on a page is standard practice if you want to raise an issue. I would never argues for "consistency across the entire navbar", and I very much agree that there is no way around a page-by-page discussion. dab (𒁳) 08:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amboxes are normally for things that an individual editor can fix, as was the template you posted. The only times that they inform the reader of an ongoing debate (AfD, merge, etc.), they point to a discussion where the reader can contribute. That's not at all the situation here. What is needed here is a consensus - otherwise, you or I could just fix the page by ourselves.

As an analogy, there have been (I believe) occasional discussions about moving the Main Page, which is in mainspace, to projectspace. I'm pretty confident that if an administrator put, on the Main Page, the same template you did, it would come down pretty quickly.

If there isn't the energy here to conduct discussions on a page-by-page basis, then perhaps the best thing is to simply drop the matter. I don't really see what harm the pages are doing where they are now - yes, there is a lack of consistency, but unless that inconsistency is actually leading to problems - bot failures or reprogramming, constant need to remove other misplaced pages due to editor confusion, etc., then maybe it's not that big a deal. (Again, I'd support moving the pages unless someone could show that moving them would break a lot of things, because I have nothing against consistency, but I also acknowledge that tradition and inertia are strong forces that have to be taken into consideration.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my book, three pages should be moved, List of topics, Lists of basic topics and List of overviews, namely because they index Wikipedia "topics", viz. they are self-reference, and I placed a template on each of them. I fail to see how this is more disruptive than your generic {{NPOV}} template, which is hardly something that an individual editor can fix more easily than clicking the "move" tab. The "Main Page" discussion is a dead horse, there is long-standing consensus to leave it where it is, and there is no ongoing discussion on this. Thus, it would clearly qualify as WP:POINT to slap a template on Main Page over this. I am sorry, perhaps I do not understand your point, but I insist that I have used the templates precisely in the way they are intended to be used. Why don't we just debate this for another couple of days, establish some sort of consensus, and then act accordingly. --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody except The Transhumanist (and recently Phoebe) have agreed that those 3 pages (plus list of glossaries) in particular probably belong in projectspace. If you've read his list of reasons at Talk:List of overviews#Move to Wikipedia:List of overviews, and are willing to debate with him when/if he reverts, then go ahead and move them or anything else. I would describe The Transhumanist as an extreme inclusionist/eventualist, and I'm quite tired of discussing list-policy minutiae with him.

However, be aware that these decisions might have numerous repercussions. See the featured Lists of mathematics topics, and it's associated List of mathematics articles for the very tip of the iceberg. There are a hell of a lot of those. Which is why I'm trying to help a consensus develop, before any drastic decisions are made.

As for the discussion above, I'd suggest that John was possibly just meaning that it's particularly bad to have giant cleanup tags on pages that look so "official", and that are only 2 clicks away via the site sidebar. Anyway, not a big deal, or relevant to the topic.

I hope all of that is clear-ish. Ask if it isn't. I'm trying to not clutter up my explanations with all the tangential issues! --Quiddity 18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear. this is why I insist on adding {{self-reference}} pending such a consensus: to draw attention to the problem. I haven't even been aware of this up to now. I don't mind if I do not get my way throughout, but I do object to being accused of "POINT" for pointing out valid issues with valid ambox templates. dab (𒁳) 07:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can figure out the appropriate place to discuss this issue, and a way to gather sufficient feedback, please do so. My methods of explaining things seem to result in silence :( Also, I have time constraints for the next week or so. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with these proposed mergers please discuss your views at Talk:Ritual slaughter rather than simply removing the merge tags. Other editors spoke in favor of them. Ritual slaughter was made into a disambig page only a few days ago, and it is by no means set in stone that it should remain that way. If you believe these articles should be reorganized in a different way not involving a merger, please bring this up. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the templates on technical grounds: it is not possible to merge articles into a disambiguation page. Turn it into an article first, and then we'll see about merging. --dab (𒁳) 07:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbachmann! If you've noticed, user Talessman has been adding many of his self-made maps (Eastern Hemisphere maps) to various Wikipedia articles (regardless of the fact that some of them already has maps on it). It seems as though he wants to add all the maps he made to every single article available. Those maps are not particularly well-made (just black-line drawings basically), and distorts the quality of the many articles that appear in it (stretches the length or spaces). It kind of also suggests self-promotion in a way... I noticed that you have removed some of the maps, but he basically is adding it back. Is there any way that you can help.--Balthazarduju 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already talked to him. I was hoping he would go and work on them more. If he just keeps adding them, we'll just have to keep removing them, I suppose, except perhaps for one or two "century" articles where they may have some use. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, nobody appointed either of you "editor-in-chiefs" of Wikipedia. I made these maps to help people get an understanding of the subject they are reading about, as well as the world that subject lived in. If you don't like the maps, maybe you should try explaining WHY, instead of being an idiot and just calling them "worthless". And if you keep going to EVERY page they are on and arbitrarily deleting them, I'll have no choice but to continue undoing your vandalism.

Most people would be willing to offer constructive criticism to help improve the maps if they think they need improvement. You guys seem to think you're above that and just say they are wrong and arbitrarily delete them from every page they are on. How are they wrong? What gives you the right to just criticise and delete them from every article? Keep removing them, and I'll keep re-adding them. There's no harm to having one of these maps on any articles, and the articles are not "your" articles. If you can't tolerate readers actually learning something, maybe you should not be on Wikipedia? Thomas Lessman 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain what was wrong with them. You didn't listen. In view of the fact that nobody appointed you "cartographer-in-chief", may I suggest that you try and deliver quality if you want your maps featured? As a first step, for the love of Mercator, base your maps on a blank map, not on a 24 bit orgy of colourful topography. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with showing the mountains, rivers, and other geographical features? I have a "blank" map available, and it contains the geographical features, minus the country names and borders. That was part of the point in making them in the first place; maps without geographical features don't show readers nearly as much accurate information about where the subject lived. You've mentioned that the maps show "too much information"? Well isn't THAT a crime on Wikipedia? We sure don't want people getting TOO much information, do we? As I stated before, if you have a problem with the maps, then you need to explain what that problem is and explain how to fix that problem. But just arbitrarily going to every page they are on and deleting them is vandalism. Unless of course, you wouldn't mind if someone went to every page you've edited and watch them revert your edits, saying they were "worthless"... Thomas Lessman 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be polite, with no effect. I have no interest in discussing details of graphical design with you. Some of yoru maps would be usable if you cropped them, e.g. showing Europe, so that the legend would become visible. Just showing thumbnails of Eurasia is pointless. Btw, Wikipedia also discourages watermarking in user-created maps, and your maps should be cropped to avoid the watermark in any case. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay DB, as per our compromise, I started editing and uploading some cropped maps (eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NE_600ad.jpg). I'm working on other edits as time permits. Can we go ahead and revert the original 600AD map to show the full map (including Australia and South Africa, since they were in the map), and use the newly cropped maps on the article pages instead? That way, the original map stays as it was (as the full, original image), but only shows on a few pertinent articles like the yearly or century articles and/or for major powers, whereas the newly cropped maps show on lesser powers articles, but also link to the original East-Hem maps for those curious for the bigger picture or further reference. Thomas Lessman 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He just couldn't stop. User Talessman is making "condensed" version of the "same" map and again distributing them all over articles (any random article). He may not agree with this, but the maps he made just simply isn't up to the standards that some of the articles requires. For example, the map ([6]) he just added to the Byzantine Empire article, shows the empire at its greatest extent; yet the map is (in my opinion) a horrible contrast to the other maps in the article. The weird purple color, the green background, the hand-drawn lines, all looks out of place with the rest of them. The article is a "Feature Article"! Check the Revision history, there is a nice map ([7]) shows the empire's greatest boundary after Justinian I's conquest, but it was replaced with his map. I hope I'm not alone on this, but I think his "self-made" maps are of subpar quality.--Balthazarduju 05:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dbachman, What is it about the Mitanni article that attracts so many fringe POV's? Today, there is someone claiming that the Mitannians were ancestors of the Kurds, instead of the Armenians! One wouldn't imagine that Mitanni was a controversial topic like Akhenaten or the Great Pyramids of Giza. This is quite annoying. IMO, the real Mitannians disappear from history once the Hittite Empire was destroyed with the arrival of the Sea Peoples....just as the 10 lost tribes of Israel were lost to history when the Assyrians conquered ancient Israel in 722 BC and they were deported from their lands. Ancient Near Eastern peoples disappear so many times in history that its almost laughable to push a POV that the Mitannians, who antedated the Hebrews, were really ancestors of such and such a people or race,

I wonder why some people seem to have an agenda on Mitanni suddenly? I don't understand this obsession on such an ancient state? Moreover, historians haven't even been able to locate the capital of Mitanni even in the 21st century to draw any firm conclusions on the Mitannians except that they were Hurrians. I think some people want to rewrite history because they can do so on this web site. Any views? Leoboudv 05:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the answer is semiprotection. US colleges are full of second generation expatriates with no historical background knowledge, and the exile's zeal for aggrandizing his nation. We have the tools to protect Wikipedia from such fringecruft, and we should apply them. dab (𒁳) 08:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab these edits [8] are not inline with verifiablity. Please come to the article talkpage. LoveMonkey 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "x" is due to the phonetic pronunciation of the sibilants in Assamese language. The language of the religion is not Sanskrit, but Assamese language. I feel the edits you performed are unwarranted. Could you please revert them? Thanks. Chaipau 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. the article as it stood made no attempt whatsoever to explain or justify the 'x'. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an effort to use this style consistently in all Wikipedia:WikiProject_Assam articles, where appropriate. This is mentioned here: Assamese language#Phonetics (look at "In Romanization" for velar voiceless fricatives). There are a few remaining ones in the above article that I shall revert over time. Thanks! Chaipau 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this. Not pleasant reading, really, but very stimulating. People should pay more attention to the broad sweeps of history, rather than the short-term history. It reminds me of the writings of Arthur C. Clarke on the future, though you don't go quite as far as Olaf Stapledon did in Last and First Men. Carcharoth 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is inspired by the interminable and mind-boggling "ethnic" stupidity so commonly found on Wikipedia. Before I came across people like Subhash Kak, I simply had no conception of just how well educated literacy and abysmal stupidity go together. Not to mention poor buggers like Martiros Kavoukjian who probably were never even given a chance to realize the nature of their "knowledge". --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether you think I'm barking up the right, or the wrong, tree over there. If you haven't given up on the subject, your input would be valued either way. Wareh 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you moved Gods to Gods (disambiguation). No real issue with that, other than I couldn't see how people were supposed to get to Gods (disambiguation) from Gods, which you redirected to Deity. I've added a dab template to Deity, but I'm not sure it's worded right, I just copied the one off the top of God. Also, someone has suggested at Talk:Gods (disambiguation), which Talk:Gods redirects to, that Gods redirect to List of Deities instead. Idea has some merit, but since you only recently pulled the move, thought I'd chew it over with you rather than being bold. Steve block Talk 21:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your concern. Yes, this is a somewhat complicated matter, owing to WP's "auto-capitalisation" which prevents us from distinguishing "God" and "god". dab (𒁳) 09:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that creates problems, yeah. But what do you think on where Gods should redirect to then, and should the talk page redirect to the same target? Steve block Talk 10:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the present solution of gods as a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got tied up in something else and forgot about this. I'm perhaps not making myself very clear here. I have no issue with the page at Gods (disambiguation). I am asking whether you think it is better to redirect Gods to Deity or to instead redirect it to Gods (disambiguation), and also, whether the talk page of Gods should redirect to the same page as the article Gods does. I hope that helps clear up any confusion we seem to be encountering here. Steve block Talk 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Dbachmann, what are you doing? even if you're an admin it never means you can add unsourced info to the article, call a large number of unrelated to each other Armenian academians, Professors, Dr's and writers ... nationalists, and change the direct quotation added by me to an OR explanation of the same source (why, do you think the direct quotation is not better, than anyones understanding?). also you called academian, prof. Rafael Ishkhanian an "Armenian nativist"... sorry? you know what the Wiki rules asking about discrimination of the sources by their national-ethnic ancestry? for your info, the same Ishkhanian was a soldier-internationalist of Sovet army liberating some countries of Europe during WWII [9]. your editions must be sourced, or sorry, but they are going to be a subject of arbitration as an OR with the elements of anti-Armenianism! Ill be grateful if you answer at the article's talk page. Andranikpasha 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you seem to overlook that I removed unsourced information, I didn't add any. I fail to see what Mr. Ishkhanian's soldierly exploits have to do with this. --dab (𒁳) 18:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have nothing against the deletion of unsourced info! I also marked maybe we can delete this article before we will have more facts of notability via Google (its another object of discussion). The only thing surely is not OK that you called a large number of Armenian professors etc. authors of "nationalist literature" without any sources, and 'called acad. Ishkhanian "Armenian native" which is prohabited by Wiki rules (here are examples of your addings [10][11]). Sometimes fighting against nationalism became something very similar to the national discrimination and the same nationalism.

Do you know one of the famous characters of "stalinism": "I never read this book but I read a review so I condemn this book ("Doctor Zhivago") and his author Boris Pasternak". Noone of us ever read Kavoukjian's work but you added Pseudohistory category just cuz a review criticized it... sorry, its not enough! The only thing I want to ask: in the case if you really hadnt sources maybe to stand by Armenian articles for a while (surely other admin's will watch them) and start to edit them after more info will be finded! Anyways thanks for the reply! Andranikpasha 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I identified Ishkhanian as a nativist, not a "native", please try to pay a little bit of attention before complaining. "Nativist" is intended to summarize his idea that "Armenians were the aborigines of the Armenian plateau who have been living there continuously since the fourth millennium B.C.E at the latest", which, in the light of mainstream academic opinion, is so much nationalist bullshit. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this idea is not a "nationalist bullshit"^{[citation needed]} but a widely accepted by Armenian and foreign scolars (f.e. von Luchan, acad. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, Dr David Lang, etc.) version (we're not judges here!). For your info this "nationalist" version (asking the ancestors of Armenians were the aborigens of Armenian Highland) is accepted by Armenian Encyclopedia and all the "Armenian History" school classbookes (even the radical supporters of "Phrygian hypothesys" like Dyakonov recognized that among the ancestors of Armenians there were aborigens of Armenian plateu, who according to them, were mixed with Mushks)! Pls be more tolerant while discussing different historical views (especially if only source is a anclear POV). Its hard for me while beeing one of the opposers of Ishkhanian's idea's fight against his classification as a "nationalist" (which you done earlier). We must differ "views on Armenia's ancient history" and Nationalism. Ishkhanyan was criticized many times not only by nationalists, but also by Armenian intellectuals for his writings "against Armenian interests", obvious "pro-Turkic" ideas, "anti-Andranikism" (it was his opinion, Im not going to call him an "pseudohistorian" or ask to ban his books, I just oppose such a POV, anyways I respect any prominent historian's research freedom!!), he condemned some important historical decisions of prev. Armenian heroes and leaders including Armenia's pro-Russian orientation, etc. And after all he became ..."an Armenian nationalist". I'll be grateful if you call at least 5 Armenian "not-nationalist" historians who arent agree with so-called "Armenian nativist" version. I know only one! If you too, and going to call all ever existed Armenian historians (starting from Movses Khorenatsi) "nationalists", then Im repeating my words on insourced anti-Armenianism. For me the unsourced calling of all the prominent Armenian historians of Ancient history "nationalists" is nothing, than a obvious fact of biased explanation of Armenian (and Armenological- Glinka, Lang, Samuelian, etc.) science and Ethnic discrimination. Sorry and thank you! Andranikpasha 11:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ffs, I didn't call Ishkhanian a nationalist, I called him a nativist. Now please stop filling my talkpage with offtopic rants. If you care about that article so much, feel free to actually fix it. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Here is the fact [12] of calling him a nationalist. And I see the same problems (a fight against unsourced "nationalism") with other Armenia-related articles too. Sorry again (I asked for a discussion at Kavoukjian's talk page, you didnt answer) and good luck! Andranikpasha 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOR CRYING out loud, I called Kavoukjian a nationalist, which he is dyed-in-the-woolly, not Ishkhanian . Will you now go away please? dab (𒁳) 12:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian articles

Dbachmann, I asked you to stand by Armenia-related articles because of your unsourced additions. Pls let Armenian users themselvs decide what is ok and what is not as surely there are a lot of less biased admins will check them. You're now supporting I person which is currently banned from "Armenia" and who sended me personal abuses in Armenian... after all you're talkin' about does "shame his own nation by his behaviour, a true anti-patriot". Pls try to be more tolerant to the Armenian users (if even they are blocked it doesnt give rights to call anyone an anti-patriot and shame of the nation). Sorry Im disturbing here again I just want to ask that Im going to ask for arbitration on your Armenia-related contributions. Andranikpasha 17:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to do that. --dab (𒁳) 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the case you hadn't recognized him, the anon. account you've been dealing with at PCT is no other than the old indef. blocked User:Nasz.--Aldux 13:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what an (Personal attack removed) -->. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey db, Mittani is constantly added to Template:History of Armenia by an anon ip, most likely ararat arev. Can you semi protect it and remove Mittani? An anon ip is also reverting and adding bs to Proto-Armenian language, that needs to be cleaned and semi protected as well.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Religiosity and intelligence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religiosity and intelligence (2nd nomination). Thank you. WotherspoonSmith 13:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC) == [reply]

		The Barnstar of WPGreece
		For your contributions to WP:GREECE and particularly to the Cumae alphabet, I award you this barnstar Odysses (☜) 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jean IV de Bueil, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jean IV de Bueil seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jean IV de Bueil, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Race of Ancient Egyptians. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, James Hjuka Coulter, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hjuka Coulter. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 15:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

{{unblock|see comment above: 
*consider resetting my block to expire at 13:43, or unblock me on parole of not touching the disputed article until 20:29 today.
*either way, take the case of Race of Ancient Egyptians to WP:AN/I for wider review: dedicated trolling accounts make reasonable editing 
impossible, admin intervention is necessary. Hit everyone with sticks until morale improves.
}}

		Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
		My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

On November 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Far right in Switzerland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Kindly nominated by Carabinieri.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]