---

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

---

This one's lovely. Get it on DYK! :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too. I'm still looking for a full transcription. dab (𒁳) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your speedy. It's not a copy of an external website. It's a copy of Battle of Baghdad (1258). Are you sure your tag was the correct reason? _GB^T/C 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but nevertheless I don't think it's patent nonsense (ie. gibberish) particularly since we allow a fair bit more latitude in userspage than in the main articlespace. I've put a {{userpage}} on it to make it clear it's not a real article. If you wish to try another speedy then from what you say {{db-copyvio}} may be more appropriate, but I cannot immediately see the text alleged to be copied from the site you cite. If you can find the original location of the text then by all means tag it again. Thanks! _GB^T/C 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. dab (𒁳) 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this seems to be a copy of Battle of Baghdad (1258) before my deep revert. rudra (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the point is, Geir Smith appears to be abusing Wikipedia user namespace to host his hilarious nonsense about (unsure if this catches its drift) a Tibetan Buddhist world conspiracy dating back to the Mongol invasions. Yes we are lenient about stuff kept in user space. There is still WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. And if that doesn't apply here I must seriously wonder where it might. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about Tibetan Buddhism that invites flights of fancy? rudra (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to take more decisive action against this guy (see my report at WP:FTN). He's been on Wikipedia since 2005 but he still doesn't get the basic rules.--Folantin (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he seems comparatively harmless so far. But, since apparently The Kingdom of Shambhala was declared on February 1st, 2008 we may now see more activity. Which will no doubt get him banned in due time. These individual kooks aren't a problem. The Wikipedia system only gets into trouble when crackpot views gather a wider following, typically for religious or nationalist reasons. dab (𒁳) 10:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a smart guy though and he rumbled us pretty quickly. I mean, the only reason we would want to delete that material is because we're part of an evil Catholic-Hindu alliance, right? (See this off-site chatter for further details [1]. Plus that really does contain off-wiki canvassing to edit the article). --Folantin (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to grok this. It's fascinating. I think that this guy is serious. I do assume we are looking at the genuine article, a 53 year old US-born textbook kook now residing in France, who has recently founded "The Kalachakra-Shambhala Kingdom" which "covers the world over and is based upon morality. It can be visited in its center which is at 5, rue du bout de la ville. 27180 Les Ventes. France.[2] It extends the whole of a thousand meter garden, a four-room house and a library-living room that has many books." (which I must add I would be delighted to visit). A for his obsession with the Mongol invasions, as far as I can gather, it seems the point is that the Ilkhanate was secretly a Tibetan Buddhist empire (Arghun-Kalachakra, secret King-Deity of full worldwide Mongol Empire that is the mystery of the Shambhala Kingdom), with Arghun being the Messiah. you got to love bits like

• It is curious that the history of Arghun has inspired a modern gaming program on Internet for children, "Highlander", and the same qualities as those of the Shambhala King are also attributed to him in it.
• one thus has to search among History's kingships for the clue to Messiahhood. Arghun or Ghazan? "Both and neither" is maybe the best answer.
• How are the Mongols with their defect-riddled clan, the hope the glimmer of hope that is the divine intervention, that they are universally seen as, by all four major religions? How are they diversely: 1. God, 2. the diety 3. messianic 4. the Messiah? ... Baghdad was thus the turning-point of Humanity, because with it, the rule of one's self had reached its climax, while against this, the Mongols gory career was nevertheless dominated by a redeeming quality of Redemption.
• These mythological figures, of Shambhala and Arghun, thus act as messengers come to avenge the dead, seven hundred some years later, and bringing the living to face up and confess, by mercilessly facing them up to their dues and past debt. ... Both figures, biding their time through history, they await the time of bringing to justice each and every one

This is apparently some sort of pop religion inspired by "Highlander", and Mr. Geir appears to be chosen to finally reveal the "Immortals" to us and bring us to judgement. And Wikipedia has been honoured to be his vehicle of revelation. I am a bit reluctant to block this chap, since I've come to really enjoy this sort of thing :) dab (𒁳) 11:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Too bad our boy Hulagu Khan was an old-style Turko-Mongol "pagan" (i.e. a follower of Tengri, like Genghis Khan) for most of his life, despite having strong Christian connections (wife, mother too I think) and going for Buddhism only in old age. Was that when the Grand Unified Buddhist Ilkhanate Conspiracy recruited him? rudra (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I've come to really enjoy this sort of thing". I see your point. It's far more exciting than the "friends of gays" vandalism we usually get. The guy lives in France but he doesn't necessarily like the French much [3]. Let's hope his new-found friend Docteur Faustroll doesn't find out. --Folantin (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's also more interesting than the same old nationalist nonsense ("Aryans are indiginous Indians", "Where are your Ancient sources say Armenians are not Mitanni", "Albanians are ancient Illyrians from Illyria", "Assyrian genes are original Mesopotamic race", "Macedonians are Hellenic race", "Ancient Egypt was a Black civilization and proud of it", "The Netherlands are the soil of the original Aryans") -- that sort of stuff is parroted by unimaginative dullard losers. But for the Geir Smith variety of crackpottery, you need to have the brain of a visionary. dab (𒁳) 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist nonsense like that is only amusing in the hands of true experts, like Johannes Goropius Becanus. Sadly, he died centuries before the invention of Wikipedia but his spirit lives on among us. --Folantin (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

too true. Many of our most notorious customers positively scream "16th century". Especially the more far out Indian ones (User:Vinay Jha appeared to be a positive 21st century John Dee). For those of us grown up in the industrialized West, it is difficult to grasp how large parts of the world are still steeped in a pre-Enlightenment mindset. In this sense, the process of education kick-started by Wikipedia really cuts two ways. dab (𒁳) 14:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit The usual way to deal with unreferenced articles (or stubs) is through the Talk page, tagging {{unreferenced}}, or, eventually nominating it for deletion. You have a long history here, though, and probably already know this. If the article does meet consensus for deletion, I'd recommend making a redirect to the Heroes (disambiguation) rather than repeating the effort. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the verbatim content of your stub is already at Paleo-Balkanic mythology. At this point you are only duplicating content under an unsuitable title. dab (𒁳) 08:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have duplicated the content by copying it from Heros to Paleo-Balkanic mythology. How is "Heros" and unsuitable title for an article about Heros? Please reach consensus before deleting the stub. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the "duplication" was the result of a process also known as {{merge}}ing, plus your revert. Instead of harping on the concept of consensus, how about you just tell me what you want? what is the problem with the merger? dab (𒁳) 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have a history of working on the article Ȣ. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um, it's a unicode codepoint. I suppose it is notable even just as such. We can simply cite the Unicode standard to begin with. dab (𒁳) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've done so.--BirgitteSB 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DB - I've deleted the Kosovo geography stubs category you made as a re-creation of a previous deletion. Stub categories are only created once there are sufficient stubs to warrant their existence. Kosovo, like several other countries, does not yet have enough geography stubs to warrant a separate category, and as such its stubs are upmerged into other categories. If you want to propose that this category is recreated, then please do so at WP:WSS/P, but until there are enough stubs, it is very unlikely to happen. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are right that it concerns some 30 stubs. That is exactly my point - the threshold for separate stub categories is 60 stubs. I suggest you check how many other countries currently have some 30 odd geography stubs but no separate geography category. Sure, we will eventually need such a category, and when we do, it will be created. At present we do not need it, nor is there anything to be gained by having it (quite the opposite, in fact). I advise you to check the rationale behind the creation of separate stub categories before accusing me of poor judgement in this matter. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fine, fine. I recognize that after this edit of yours, the situation is resolved satisfactorily. dab (𒁳) 14:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reply to my comment regarding the typography section in the article. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me a good motivation why removing the page Syriac-Aramean people and redirect it to Western Syriacs. You dont know the background, and the terms, you are just moving articles without any background information. Western Syriacs are a group that counts in all assyrians, chaldeans, and syriac-arameans from an specific area. The Syriac-Aramean group does not belong to the assyrians or the chaldeans. VegardNorman (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware of the background. See Names of Syriac Christians. What you mean is Syriac-Aramaic identity, which already has an article. This is a boring topic of petty ethnic nationalism, and I assure you, we have been over it many times before. dab (𒁳) 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syriacs are an ethnic group, that has all right for an article in wikipedia. Like there is an article about the assyrians, kurds, armenians, their should be an article about the syriacs (arameans). VegardNorman (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you do not listen. Syriacs are an ethnic group indeed, their article is at Assyrian people: the article lead plainly says "also called Syriacs". We do not create seperate articles for synonyms. You want to suggest a {{move}} of Assyrian people to some other title. You are welcome to do that. You are not welcome to create erratic content forks. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That proofs how unintelligent you are in that area. Syriacs counts them self as syriacs, but people like EliasAlucard counts them as Assyrians, wich is very wrong. Syriacs (Arameans) got their own history and culture, language and religion. I have already been discussing this matter with another Assyrian-Chaldean wikipedians, and we came to an agreement of creating a article about the people, who has been living in TurAbdin for 2000 years (The article Assyrian poeple is threating the assyrians in Iraq), should have their own article VegardNorman (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, ok? I've tried to talk sense to you. "That proofs how unintelligent you are in that area" is exactly the sort of thing I used to be told by Elias as well, who, strangely enough, held the position exactly opposed to yours. Wikipedia doesn't work by telling people they are "wrong". You want to move one of the existing articles, do a proper proposal. Unless you do that, you'll just run into WP:3RR, and acheive nothing. This is the way Wikipedia works. You want to stick around and have an effect, you better familiarize yourself with the system. dab (𒁳) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to do this. Article Syriac-Aramaic identity, Western Syriacs should be one article -> Syriac-Aramean people. What do you think VegardNorman (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's a possibility. I suggest you begin by merging Syriac-Aramaic identity into Western Syriacs. Then you should place a {{move}} template on Talk:Western Syriacs and wait for comments. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done VegardNorman (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you're not very fond of nationalism, to use an understatement, neither am I. But to label ethnic identities as ethnic nationalism, is one bridge too far, I believe. People can be convinced about their heritage and cherish that, without demanding a polity of their own. Suppose the Rumantschs identify with the Raetians, that would not turn them into nationalists, would it? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you got this right. There is nothing wrong with ethnic identity of course. But all this noise about identifying with this or that Bronze Age people is just national mysticism and has nothing to do with bona fide ethnic identity. This is as if the Rumantsch people were bashing their heads in over a dispute on whether they are "really" Raetians or Romans. The ethnic identity of these people is defined by their speaking Aramaic, and by their being Christian (in the midst of the Islamic world). They used to bicker about finer points of Christology (Nestorians vs. Jacobites), and recently, it appears, Christology has become too uncool or too complicated for angry young men to identify with, so they tend to opt for bickering about identification with Bronze Age peoples known from archaeology only. dab (𒁳) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all ethnic/national identities are based upon myths, but that doesn't make the ethnic groups/nations unreal. Neither does that turn people who identify with such a myth into nationalists, which is a political stance that implies the demand for an own state (or at least a part of that). Identification with an ancient people, whether it's real or not, is not quite a Blut und Boden ideology. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I add to that that I have the impression that among the Syriacs, the Assyrians in general tend to be more nationalistic than the Aramaeans, who came to stress their heritage (be it perceived or not) more explicitly as a reaction to Assyrianism. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check discussin in article West Syriacs. Move the article to Syriac/Aramean people? VegardNorman (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why did you remove the whole text in the article Syriac-Aramean people ? VegardNorman (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose he did it because it is the sort of thing Dbachmann likes doing. That only a day earlier you had informed him that you had proposed merging the western Syriacs entry with this now-removed one, just makes his lack of care all the more revealing. All the Syriac/Suriani/Assyrian/whatever articles are a mess, and Dbachmann has a lot to do with it. I used the words "mess" and "whatever" because the whole purpose of an encyclopedia article seems to be lost sight of - after reading the various related articles, I am not much clearer in knowing which is the correct term to use and which term refers to which region or people or religious group - and Dbachmann's constant belittling of issues involving ethnicity and his never-disguised scorn of what he calls "nationalism" does not help matters. Meowy 02:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBachmann;

I know you and the administrators are busy w/ things (dare I say outright chaos!) but Addhoc referred me to you for a problem I've had in the past that you've apparently dealt w/ under similar circumstances. Essentially, I've been noticing that genetic info based on modern populations has been surfacing in archaeological and various other articles (linguistic, physical anthropological etc.) in a manner that is pretty much flat out POV or hasn't any real relevance to the topics. Case in point is the problem I had w/ the Ahrensburg "culture" article. Basically there is now a genetics section based on studies of modern populations that doesn't have any firm links to the culture in question. On my personal TALK page I'm trying to build a consensus regarding the proper use of this info and get a broader discussion, range of opinions, etc. I suspect you may be familiar w/ that discussion already but but if you are not could you please visit the Ahrensburg culture article and its discussion page, glance over it (again?) and tell me what you think on my discussion page if you havn't already. As usual any insight or advice on how to build a consensus towards the use of this data is greatly welcomed. Thanks.

Geog1 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1[reply]

Ok I notice that there is some silence on this issue. Is this a sign that we're saying its ok to throw this info around in such a matter even though its very preliminary and doesn't really match up always that well w/ the archaeological and even the linguistic record OR is it just too damn complicated and messed up as it is to really do anything about it OR something else?

Geog1 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1[reply]

I invite you to Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board. Dab, as you see in the talk page of Assyrian genocide, I have rebuffed every arguement Verard has made on the move, so can you please move it back, because I seem to do so. Chaldean (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for you to move back the Assyrian genocide page. Chaldean (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only just noticed your post there and perfunctorily replied there as well. The way I remember it is that all sorts of "constituencies and views" were being accommodated and counter-balanced in that particular choice of words, cheesy as it sounds now. Will come up with something better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Camptown (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the pottery is 14th century and the names are archaic.[4].The link on my page just had a wrong title and i didn't misinterpret anything.A person watching it would simply hear it.Megistias (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool. So they found a 7th to 6th century BC inscription of a personal name in Macedonia. And there was much rejoicing. As long as it isn't ostensibly in XMK, I fail to see the relevance to anything. dab (𒁳) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also what you write on the prehistoric balkans article on epirotes and macedonians is what only the nationalists from albania and fyrom say.And you go against all sources to support such a claim.Abuse of admin power on a whim.Megistias (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense. You might perhaps find me supporting Albanian nationalism when I am simultaneously too drunk to stand up, lovesick, and stoned out of my mind. I assure you that none of these conditions apply at this point in time. dab (𒁳) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not supporting any sort of nationalism but you unintentionally are.Why are you ignoring my sources? Just so you know you don't know what i truly am and anything would be irrelevant only the sources matter.Megistias (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what do you want? I am not "ignoring your sources". I have no problem with the possibility that XMK may have been some strange dialect of NW Greek. I even personally think it is quite likely. What I object to is your attempt to portray academic speculations on Early Iron Age dialectology as dead certain facts, and your implication that said speculations are of any relevance to modern questions of nationhood or identity. dab (𒁳) 06:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh!? I never mixed modern identity with the issue?!Who gives a whatever about today. Borza & Hammond states the Epirus & Macedon were ancient Greeks.You are ignoring them even now.There is no consensus on hellenisation of the 4th century bc.Sources say epirus was proto greek and macedon as well.Megistias (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to your nice email, which seems to indicate this isn't a purely academic question for you. Don't bother writing me just to rant at me. I am not ignoring your source. So Borza & Hammond say Epirotes and Macedonians spoke Greek. Duly noted. Anything else? dab (𒁳) 10:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since its duly noted take it into account along with other sources.Megistias (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you did not answer me on my discussion. VegardNorman (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sakaldwipiya}}

Hi Dab, If you have the time/interest, can you take a look at these series of articles ?

• Sakaldwipiya History
• Sakaldwipiya
• Shakdvipa

The titles of the listed references and the combination of Bhavishya Purana, Mahabharata and the Bible make me suspect that these are related to fringe pseudo-history (and as such may well deserve to have articles on wikipedia), but I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to separate kernels of wheat from the chaff. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, I see this will be difficult to sort out. Another brahmin documenting his own cherished gotra in epic length. These articles are essays, not horrible at that, but it will be almost impossible to verify what is actually in the sources, what should stay but not be presented in Wikipedia's voice, and what should go as WP:SYN. The constant reference to the (Biblical?) Magi certainly sets off bullshit alarms. It turns out there was an existing artice at Shakadvipi, which was turned into a redirect to the new one. But the article is in excellent shape compared to what we usually get in this sector. dab (𒁳) 06:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looking through it, it seems pretty much ok. Just some general edits adjusting tone, grammar, formatting etc. is needed, the articles are surprisingly well referenced. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review, Dab! If the content is more-or-less reliable and reliably sourced, the stylistic improvements and wikification can always be handled by wikignomes (like me) who need not have a deep knowledge of the subject itself. I'll give the article another (less skeptical) read. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my praise was somewhat premature. I see there is a lot of offtopic nonsense in there. But at least it's easy to spot. (such as, a bibliography on Wicca at Sakaldwipiya History). There is some value in there, but all the tangents about magicians in general can just go. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Etruscan Chariot 530BC.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the image because I believe it to be a copyright violation. User:Farazilu claims to be the creator of the work, but lists sources such as YouTube and some blogs. I am willing to bet that User:Farazilu does not own the copyright to this image as claimed, which means ne cannot release the image under GFDL. The image would not survive a fair use claim because it is replaceable as the subject is still alive. -Regards Nv8200p talk 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Image restored and marked as a possibly unfree image. -Regards Nv8200p talk 13:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble locating which article(s) this image was in. If you know, could you please return the image to the proper article(s). -Thanks Nv8200p talk 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the discussion in article Syriac-Aramean people. VegardNorman (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check discussion at [5] VegardNorman (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have French Guiana colored black in this, but since it is part of France, it should have the same color as France, just as Alaska would have the same color as the lower 48. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know your expertise is extremely wide-ranging, but this is one area where it could be useful! Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously very passionate and knowledgeable about all this, so join up and help ensure this takes a positive scholarly direction! I promise we'll have a better chance of avoiding the pitfalls you mentioned once you do. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let's just say I am very much aware of the dynamics these "ethnic" things take on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is necessary to get all shifted to Wikiproject Celtic studies, do we need to ask an admin or fire up a bot? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any discussion you start moving articles, using terms that are hardly in use anymore, and are considered pejorative by many ... I thought we were going to do this after thorough discussion. You require others to show source, whereas you go ahead moving and editing without either sourcing or discussing. You might be an admin, but you should also abide by the rules. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be, you can't just go around moving articles without prior discussion or research. Neither Jacobite nor Nestorian is in use nowadays, and considered pejorative. Compare it with calling Muslims "Mohammedans".

We are still discussing this matter. Let's first reach consensus, and then start moving some things around. These problems have been lingering on for months if not years, we don't need to rush, certainly not into pejorative terms. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with calling Muslims "Mohammedans". It's a neutral term for the religious doctrine they follow. Anyway, I will be happy to accept the term is outdated if you could only cite some sources. Our default position should be Britannica 1911. Which is certainly outdated, but at least it is respectable and notable. If you have respectable sources dating to after 1911, we can certainly build on them too. Please understand that my edits are a reaction to the general lack of sources. I am thus not pushing original research, I am re-instating a neutral reflection of our lack of research. dab (𒁳) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the term Nestorian: S.P. Brock, "The Nestorian Church: A Lamentable Misnomer," in Bulletin John Rylands Library 78:3 (1996), pp. 23-35.

I understand your urge for sources, but how are your recent moves endorsed by sources, I wander? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, the articles used to claim "Western/Eastern Syriacs" was synonymous to "Jacobite/Nestorian". No source. The adherents.com numbers given applied to the latter. So, I have moved the articles to comply with the source given (adherents.com, viz. articles about a religious denomination), and I have removed the unsourced claim that these groups are identical with alleged "Western" or "Eastern Syriacs". "Western" and "Eastern Syriac" appears to me to refer to West Syrian Rite and East Syrian Rite, and I have placed disambiguation notes accordingly. I understand "Nestorian" is a "misnomer", but until we have some preferable synonym, I suppose we are stuck with it. dab (𒁳) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can yo claim Sabistian Brock to be a neutral source? He has publicly converted to Syriac Orthodox Church. Chaldean (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-3rr}} --Camptown (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have kindly asked you to stop posting template messages to my talkpage. You are trolling. dab (𒁳) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my decision at the AN3 noticeboard, you are now only allowed to make two reversions to an article within a 24 hour period before having to stop. I'm hoping to have you and the other editor in question stop pushing back in forth; instead, please use this time to develop consensus on issues you disagree on. Thanks, and please reply on my talk page so I can be sure you've received this. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied to user's talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR board is for resolving editing disputes, which is why I've invoked 2RR, in the hopes of fixing this dispute. ANI and ARBCOM aren't necessary for things like this. Instead of imposing a block, I'm imposing a temporary measure to stop you from editing disruptively. If you'd like, I can state the case at ANI, but I don't think that is necessary. I actually did look at the case, and I think it is just a standard edit dispute, which would benefit from some time to cool off.

Now, when I say this, please know that I mean no offence. However, how long you've been on Wikipedia doesn't mean you are automatically more experienced. There is no seniority on a project like this; that's fundamentally against everything we're trying to acheive, which is a level playing ground where everyone is the same and can edit in harmony, instead of a class of elitist veterans ruling over the helpless noobs. I'll review Camptown's contributions very thoroughly, but please stick to 2RR in the meantime. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Puppets, there's little I can see on wikipedia that empowers you to make a "decision" like that. You didn't define time or scope on WP:AN3, though I see here you've refined this as "temporary" now. If you believe you can do this, I'd request you seek counsel for this on ANI. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is possible for admins to impose special restrictions by community consensus. Admins can act either on WP:BLOCK, WP:DISRUPT. They cannot just "invoke 2RR" (I've never even heard of "WP:2RR"), certainly not based on a 3RR report (a bogus one at that). Before admins come up with customized restrictions, they need to consider the case, with some intelligence. MoP has clearly done no such thing. He sees reverts and "imposes 2RR", never mind that the dispute was clearly one of "pro-NPOV-policy" vs. "pro-Albanian-nationalism". Which side, do you think, should any Wikipedian, including any Wikipedia admin, take? This is not a dispute of a Serbian nationalist vs. an Albanian nationalist. It is a "dispute" of a veteran Wikipedia NPOV-fascist vs. an Albanian nationalist. Enough said. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing about who's right and who isn't the fact is that you were just blindly reverting each other without any pause. Also, I'm not imposing an indefinite rule, but rather just a temporary thing to try to get people to compromise, not edit war. You're right that ARBCOM or ANI would be needed for this if it was indefinite, but in this case all I'm going for is a few days so that everyone can discuss the matter and be happy. If you'd like, I'll take it up at ANI. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no on both counts. The reverting was not done "blindly", it was in my case coherently argued on talk as establishing NPOV. There is a huge difference between a revert accompanied by a coherent explanation, and a revert based on pure WP:ILIKEIT. No, you are also not within your rights to just make up policies as you go along. People usually cry "admin abuse" over far less. dab (𒁳) 10:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed. Thought this an interesting topic, Dbachmann, and raised it as a question for the nominee at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DeadEyeArrow. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I'm trying to help you two reach a compromise without inheriting a bias. You guys were edit-warring (against policy); two experienced contributors should know not to do that. Yes, you didn't technically break 3RR, but you don't have to break it for it to be edit warring, and I'm not willing to see two editors dance around multiple articles fighting over each one for two or three edits before finding another battleground. All I was hoping to do was keep you guys contained without any article protection or blocks. I apologize if you feel I've overstepped my bounds. Also, please don't take this to be an endorsement of Camptown or something. I'm trying to stop further damage, not favour any editors.

On another note, I think I'm going to bring up a proposal about actions like this WT:BAN. I don't want to hide anything from you, after all. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MoP was just trying to help you out with this (admittedly unusual) 2RR. While it is true that this is not something that is normally done, MoP didn't block you both outright, which he certainly would be justified in doing to stop an edit war, even if there is no 3RR violation. Instead he choose to give you some leeway. I would consider him to not literally be saying, from now on you can never make three reverts again, but rather, if you continue, and make more reverts (he specifies 2, for whatever reason) you may be blocked. It really isn't a ban, more of a warning, if seen in this context. Prodego ^talk 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that MoP would be justified in blocking to stop an edit war, I said nothing specific about this particular situation. To be clear, I have no opinion on whether this "2RR" is justified, just that it is probably not against policy in general, so long as it is considered a warning. As for your talk page, I unprotected it because it is against policy to have it protected (WP:PPol is the protection policy, not a proposal). A "wikilike approach", as you put it, would be to immediately take an action, since it can always be undone, in a true wiki, there would be no admins, and anyone could do anything of their own accord. As such, seeing that semi-protection is not permitted for a long term period on user talk pages, and that yours was protected for nearly a year, there is almost no valid excuse for leaving it protected. Therefore I unprotected it. Do you have a reason for the protection that you would have raised if I had contacted you first, that you can't raise now? Or one you can raise now for that matter? Prodego ^talk 17:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

I see nothing in Dbachmann's behavior that justifies this "2RR warning", particularly not one so poorly designed. Does it apply to every article? Is there any expiration date? Hopefully MoP will rescind this warning; but if he doesn't see fit to do so, I strongly recommend that he post to WP:ANI before issuing any block under this restriction, because I doubt there would be consensus for such a block. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus: Edit warring is edit warring. To be frank, someone of dab's stature and experience should know better than to edit war. And no, this 2RR was meant to apply for the short term for all controversial edits. In other words, for a limited period it was my intention that they may not insert potentially controversial material. I think that the time has come for the restriction to end, though. Really, it was just my attempt at getting them to stop clashing over multiple articles, without me having to issue blocks and/or protect multiple pages (the latter did happen, but I feared they'd find new places to fight on). Hopefully some useful consensus has come out of this; if there hasn't, then hopefully they won't edit war further until they do reach a compromise. And I'm reasonably sure that reporting to ANI isn't necessary to block for edit warring. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 16:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit warring is edit warring" -- you still haven't bothered to build a judgement informed by the actual issue, have you. This is what I call "armchair admining". Not helpful. Your condescension isn't appreciated either. MoP: you need to meditate on your approach here. You may block people for 3RRvio without considering any context. That's the whole point of the 3RR. You may also block people for blatant vandalism of the "penis penis penis" type. You may not idly "block people for edit-warring" on a whim, without bothering to look at context, past debates, policy concerns, etc., using your human good judgement, unless the 3RR has been broken. This is why we elect human admins instead of just letting a small shell script do the blocking. You do not want to look into the Kosovo issue? You are welcome to come back and slap me if I do break the 3RR, or if you catch me inserting "penis penis" in article space: there is no shame in focussing on such "menial" admin tasks. Just, do not confuse the menial tasks with those that need judgement and intelligence. In the meantime, I will thank you for not taking up any more of my time. dab (𒁳) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking at the actual issue. Even though I was born in the region I'm fairly separated from Balkan political messes. The point of this isn't to "armchair admin", but instead to stay neutral. I'm sorry if I come across as condescending, but that's the polar opposite of what I'm trying to get across. Again, yes, edit-warring is blockable (WP:EW); 3RR is just a technical guideline, but you don't have to break it to be edit warring. And if Camptown makes a blatantly wrong edit, you revert, and he puts it back, then that's all fine and good; don't keep reverting. Instead, just report the issue. It's better to tell people before you've already fought back and forth over at least two articles. Hopefully, this is clear enough for you to understand; I've lifted whatever restrictions though, and apologize for taking up your very valuable time. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refuse to reply to key issues I keep bringing up? Do you not have an answer for them? Chaldean (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you about five times over. I think the problem is that you don't understand what I am saying. I am sorry. Try to use a dictionary, and try to consult the sources cited. You may also ask Benne for help: he is perfectly able to understand what I am saying, and he is capable of citing his soutces in a meaningful way. Learn to do the same or find some other online activity. dab (𒁳) 09:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you answered my question of where and how have you proven there is a more common name other then Assyrian used in the English language? Please show me where. Also, how have you justified the term Syrian Nestorians when there is only 300 hits and all talking about ancient times? Shoe me where you have answered that. How have you gathered this conclusion that Assyrian is only a reference to members of ACOE? Of course you haven't answered any of my question because you seem to think your above the law and don't need to negotiate. Answer these questions and I will give you the rest. Chaldean (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are not making sense. I am asking you for sources for the definition of a group such as "Eastern Assyrians", not of "Assyrians/Syriacs" in general. I have no interest in "debating" on such an exasperatingly low level. Again, talk to Benne please. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to redirect the point? You were ready to move the Assyrian people page and I am asking you under what grounds did you make that decision? Or do you not want to discuss Chaldean (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Please, go do some research before you create a page like Syrian Jacobites. The churchs and the people refuses and dont use that name. VegardNorman (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the encyclopedias do. Less qestion marks, less hysteria, more citing of sources please. This is an encyclopedia, not your private homepage. You want to edit content, you cite encyclopedic sources like everyone else. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you first provide evidence that the term Jacobite is still in use? As far as I know, only a couple of churches in India use that name. I don't consider adherents.com a reliable source, and the source they use is also false: the head of the Syriac Orthodox Church is not in Iraq, but in Syria. Interesting to note, however, that that same source states that the name Jacobite was given by opponents of Jacob Baradaeaus (which suggests that the name was not used by the church itself). --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: the misnomer refers to the Syriac Orthodox, whereas the article is about the West Syriacs, which include Syriac Catholics and a few Protestants. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, I did place a merge tag on Western Syriacs. My position is the following: The "Eastern" (Jacobite) and "Western" (Nestorian) articles need to be merged into the main Assyrian people article due to insufficient referencing. The Assyrian people articles needs to be moved to Syriac/Assyrian people vel sim., because the ethnonym is obviously a matter of dispute. Then a situation will be achieved that is actually in line with such sources as we have. Then we can discuss creating sub-articles of "Eastern" vs. "Western" groups provided satisfactory sources are produced. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Assyrian people articles needs to be moved to Syriac/Assyrian people vel sim., because the ethnonym is obviously a matter of dispute - You still didn't answer my question. We are aware the ethnonum is a matter of dispute and that is why we created an article solely to discuss this issue ([Names of Syriac Christians]].) You have preached of using the most common term used in the English Language and I am asking you again; where and how have you proven that the Syriac name is as equally used as the Assyrian name? Because that is what a Syriac/Assyrian people title would mean right? That they are equally used in the English language. So how have you proven this? Chaldean (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let's make this simple: the articles Western Syriacs (Syriac-Aramaean people) and Eastern Syriacs do not have sufficient sources. They need to be merged into Assyrian people for now. Then we can discuss the ideal name of that article. It can remain at "Assyrian people", or it can be moved to "Syriac/Assyrian" or whatever, that's secondary. The main point is that we do only one article per ethnic group. dab (𒁳) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~:::: 'only one article per ethnic group. Well in this case, there is one about the assyrians and one about the syriacs/arameans. Both groups consider them selfs as a ethnic group. one group consider them selfs as descendants to arameans, and the other group consider them selfs as assyrians. You cant unite two groups, if they got different flags, different names and most important of all, a different history. VegardNorman (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VegardNorman, cite your sources making these two ethnic groups. There is one group: The Assyrians, also known as Syriacs, speaking Aramaic (or "Aramaean" if you insist). If you disagree, let's see some source backing you up. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab you continue to not answer my question, but thats ok. So let me get this straight; if we only change the Syriac-Aramean people's template from ethnic one to a religous one (Green) then you dont have a problem anymore? Chaldean (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, nobody calls themsleves Syriac-Aramean, but simply Aramean. The reason I disgouraged Vegard from using Aramean people alone, is because it would have been too contreversial. The page was created to talk about this group of people who do not identify themselves as Assyrian, but rather simply Aramean. Remember that only a minority within the Syriac Orthodox have this view, and they mostly live in Northern Europe (which I think needs to be mentioned in the beginning of the page.) Chaldean (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but the point is: "Aramaeans" is another name for the same group. We cannot have two articles on the same group just because there are two names for it. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab is not just another name. They believe they are different from the rest. Chaldean (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab you should be the one who should cite his source since your the one doing the addition.

also called Syriacs, Syriac Christians, Suryoye, Aramaeans, partly also Chaldeans see names of Syriac Christians subgroups include "Chaldeans", "Jacobites" and "[[Eastern Assyrians|Nestorians]

Where is your source that says all these names are equally used with the Assyrian name in todays time? (with the exception of Syriac and Chaldean of course.) Chaldean (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are not making sense. Do you have some older brother who can communicate coherently in English perhaps? Or anyone else I can talk to? dab (𒁳) 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part cite your sources don't you understand? Cite your sources that all these dubious different names are equally used to refer to this group. Chaldean (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cute. now you just copy-paste my complaints back at me? I thought only teenage Hindutvavadis did this sort of thing. Nationalism must be like being in love, all higher brain functions shutting down? My source, incidentially, would be e.g. the US census. See any "Arameans" headcount in the US census? No? That's because they fall under "Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans". I don't care what you call yourself. This is your pathetic mess. Just don't take it out on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I am asking you to cite a source that Arameans is equally used as Assyrian to refer to this group. If you cant cite that, then it should be removed from the beginning of the sentence of the article. Simple as that. Chaldean (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found the sources yet? Chaldean (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see Names of Syriac Christians. We describe this whole sad mess of puerile ethnic infighting there. dab (𒁳) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in that page does it say Aramean is equally used to Assyrian in the English language? Please can you point that out? Chaldean (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek-Etruscan bilingual inscription at Delphi that you noted in the article is still without a citation. I have finally commented it out while we continue to wait for one. --Wetman (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I forgot about this. It is of course alright to remove this pending citation. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice this dab??? http://www.aumscience.com/pranavaveda.html BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"7000 BC" is bogus of course, but once such a "translation" is published, we can naturally discuss it on the Mamuni Mayan article. They say "in the mid 1980s, the only known copy of Pranava Veda was found in Tamil Nadu". It would be interesting to know if this text has been edited anywhere. If it has, did it receive any scholarly attention? It will either be a modern fake, or possibly a medieval Tamil text (like the Sanskrit Puranas, proposing to be a gazillion years old). Until something is published, we don't have anything to report one way or the other. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is a handful of google books hits. [6] [7]: the claim of the existence of a primeval "Pranava Veda" is apparently found in the Shilpa Shastras. It that is correct, we know at least where this wild goose chase originates. dab (𒁳) 13:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"wild goose chase originates" well well.. yesterday there was nothing... today.. there is something... it is said that at the end of Kaliyuga this book will come before everybody..... Unfortunately wikipedia's standards does not allow such locally printed books to be brought to day light, or I would have taken some efforts to unearth those writing for you all. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really pity for wiki that it's policies currently does not allow it to publish all these local sayings which I knew.. already :).... well.. I now understand how all these works.... and it's next to impossible for you guys to publish them before hand.... BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure - the internet is wide. Wikipedia is just a website. You can publish your wisdom in many many other places. dab (𒁳) 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean

Since you now deleted everytring i wrote in that article, what are you gonna do about your proposal Syriac/Assyrian people ? VegardNorman (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do propose we move Assyrian people to Assyrian/Syriac people (which is, you will note, already a redirect. You can validly link to Assyrian/Syriac people right now). Already for compatibility with Assyrians/Syriacs in Germany etc. The slash is a nod to the de facto dispute surrounding the name. This needs to be discussed at Talk:Assyrian people. dab (𒁳) 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not going to happen, so do you have another idea to fix this mess you have created? Chaldean (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we are getting there. If you stop trolling this topic, we can arrive at a reasonable solution within a day. Again, as soon as you cite decent sources, I will be happy to be informed by them. By "trolling" I mean ignoring what few sources we have and raising a big stink based on nothing but your own predilections. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During this whole mess you dab have still haven't provided your sources to show that anything other then Assyrian is equally used in the English language. Until you can do this, then this isn't even an issue. Assyrian is an ethnicity dab, not just an identity. and it really seems that "Assyrians/Syriacs" is the best bet we have at present. if your going to do that, then your obligated to also Chaldean and Aramean. Go ahead and move it to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/Aramean. Where do we draw the line? Assyrian is the most common term used in the English language. Again, cite and prove otherwise, then this can acutally be an issue. Chaldean (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you still haven't looked at signifié/signifiant, have you. I am well aware that Assyrian is the term for an ethnicity. There are other terms in use for the same ethnicity, such as Aramaean or Syriac. US authorities saw fit to opt for "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" in order to be rid of bickering by the likes of you. This may be where we are going, although the shorter Assyrians/Syriacs seems satisfactory (and is in use on Wikipedia already, e.g. in the title Assyrians/Syriacs in Syria, Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden etc. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfactory to who? You? The Assyrian/Syriacs in Syria page has just been recently moved, without even disuccing it. I admnitted that this was an issue in Northern Europe only and that was way I moved the Assyrians/Syriacs in Holland page. Please know this; if you can't cite your source that anything other then Assyrian is equal or more used to refer to the group, then you don't have any strong grounds to move the Assyrian people page. Also, please refraim from removing massive amont of sourced information, just because you think its off-topic. Chaldean (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your objection. I agree "Assyrians" is a common term for the group. "Assyrians/Syriacs" still puts it first, and the slash simply indicates that there are other terminological preferences in existence. Where is the problem? It's not as if anyone was trying to move Assyrian people to Aramaean people? Regarding "off-topic", see WP:SYN. The article Names of Syriac Christians is ostensibly about names of Syriac Christians. It is patently unclear why we should discuss academic questions of Early Iron Age history on that page. dab (𒁳) 14:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to be misinformed. The article of the naming dispute what created to talk about the backround of each name since the existence of these people. The title of the page was decided on the bases of being most neutral, not on the grounds of talking only about the Christian-era of these people.

"Assyrians/Syriacs" still puts it first, and the slash simply indicates that there are other terminological preferences in existence. - there are other ternomologies for every single ethnic group. Show me another ethnic group page on Wikipedia that uses /. By your idiology, we should move the Greek people page to Greek/Hellenic people. Again, you continue to create more problems then actually slove them. I awknolged there is an issue and that is why we created the naming disupte page. But to spill this issue on all these other pages is making things ever worse. Whats next move the Assyrian genocide page? Change every sngle Assyrian reference on wikipedia is slashes? Chaldean (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

except the Greeks don't make fools of themselves in the Greek/Hellenic matter the way you people do. If you can cite a national census listing a "Greek/Hellenic" group, we can discuss this at Talk:Greeks. Well, Chaldean, who was killed in the Assyrian genocide? Was it only people insisting they were "Assyrian", or were there other victims, perhaps considering themselves "Syrian", "Syriac" or "Aramaean"? I really don't give a rat's ass about all this. I note something is disputed and look for a solution within WP:NPOV. You, otoh, are clearly party in this dispute, and all you keep doing is spamming me with your subjective position. Take Benne as an example. He may also be involved, but at least he has the brains to abstract from his personal views and submit to Wikipedia policy. To answer your question: yes, I suspect this matter is so far removed from any amicable solution that there may be no way around adopting an ugly "slash" solution. I do not like the prospect myself, but I can hardly be blamed that the Syriacs are the one ethnicity on the face of the planet who cannot decide what they would like to be called. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you dab for calling my people fools, but I will ignore it and continue try to work with you. I have replied to your answer that you provided to my qeustion (and then removed it.) I hope you reply back. Chaldean (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are really incapable of distinguishing your own person from your ethnicity, aren't you. I certainly do not hope you are a typical example, but no, I wouldn't dream of calling an entire ethnic group "fools" summarily. Every nation has its fools. In the Syriac case, the fools concentrate on bickering about naming issues and the Bronze Age, but I certainly do suppose that's just the lunatic fringe. Hey, we have complete morons in my country. They don't hate each others guts because they identify as Helvetii vs. Raetians or something, but that just means they find some other idiocy to indulge in.dab (𒁳) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said and I quote matter the way you people do. - how is you people a reference to just me? Your hatred is clear here and you should take it back. Chaldean (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel no hatred at all, but I do feel occasional exasperation with your dedication to ignoratio elenchi. With "you people" I certainly do not refer to 3 million Syriacs, I refer to a half dozen pov pushers plaguing Wikipedia talkpages. I certainly do assume by default that the majority of the 3 to 4 million Syriacs are perfectly sane, reasonable and likeable people, same as any other group taken at random. dab (𒁳) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benne

For now I can live with a move to "Assyrians/Syriacs", but I don't think we should blindly follow national censuses when it comes to determining article names, since the categories are determined by the state and the people concerned are often left not much choice. (See my remark concerning the Australian census.) There should in my opinion be uniformity in article naming.

In the long run, I believe there should be three separate articles for Syriacs (common article), Assyrians, and Aramaeans. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I have exactly the same misgivings. Our problem is that this group is very poorly documented in recent literature. Designations in censuses are by no means ideal sources, but they happen to be the best we have at present. There are detailed discussions in dated encyclopedias (1910s Britannica and Catholic Encyclopedia), but I am aware these are outdated of course, and they mostly focus on details of rite and Christological doctrine, which I feel are not very central to the current generation of Syriac/Assyrian expatriate patriots. Uniformity in article naming is indeed important, and it really seems that "Assyrians/Syriacs" is the best bet we have at present. The problem is that "Assyrian" is used both for the entire group (by unsuspecting outsiders) and for the Assyrian nationalists in particular. We should probably have separate articles for the "Assyrian identity" and for the "Aramaean identity", i.e. on the ideologies themselves, not alleged "ethnic groups" embracing these ideologies. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am trying to locate the origin of IAST. Sure it evolved from various individual (and related) transliteration schemes, but I would like to know who standardized this scheme and gave it the title IAST (and when?). You once noted that the Congress of Orientalists standardized IAST in 1912 at Athens, but I have their Bulletin here with me and IAST seems to be already well established and is not at all referred to in the proceedings. Could you also tell me what sources I should consult to confirm the Congress of Orientalists-origin. shashir 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

oh dear. I must have taken the 1912 congress reference from somewhere, but I didn't actually verify it because it seemed plausible enough. I am afraid I do not know where to find this information at present, but I'll make a mental note to be on the lookout. thanks, --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for eavesdropping, but check this out:

"Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal", Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1896 p. 120-121

which has a short note on the "Report of the committee on transliteration" of the 10th International Congress of Orientalist at Geneva (3rd to the 12th,September, 1894). The committee arrived at a transliteration scheme for Sanskrit and Pali, which on a cursory glance looks like IAST to me (see page 121)- although that term is not used in the report. Wonder if this is the origin of IAST, rather than the 1912 congress ... Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it! I will locate the 10th Congress proceedings and confirm! shashir 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashir (talk • contribs)

Likewise, can you provide a source which states that the Chaldean subgroup does not refer to the entire Assyrian population as Chaldeans? I can provide a quote from Hormuzd Rassam whereby he referred to Assyrians by the name "Chaldean", and even addressed the name confusion as of the late 1800's. Although it is outdated, it is a source, if you would like to see it :) --Šarukinu (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If Hormuzd Rassam has used "Chaldean" for the entire group, we should be all means note this, alongside the equally obsolete "Syrians", but not in the article lead, since it is not a synonym in current usage. Please be aware of (and read) the Names of Syriac Christians article, where we have collected such sources as we have. Note the 1910 quote we have there, stating that

"Chaldean would suit admirably; but it is put out of court by the fact that in modern use it means only those members of the Church in question who have abandoned their old fold for the Roman obedience"

i.e. "Chaldean" was obsolete as a term for the entire group at least since the early 1900s, because the term had come to refer to Chaldean Catholics exclusively. You have not answered my question as to on what grounds you claim that "Aramaeans" refers to a subgroup. How is this alleged subgroup defined? dab (𒁳) 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should not be in the lead. And it was way back in the days of yore when "Chaldean" was used to refer to all of Iraq's Christian population. Here's my logic behind removing "Aramaean": the usage of this term is of a minscule scale when compared to the usage of "Assyrian" and "Syriac", even when compared to the Chaldean subgroup. It is a more recent move which begain in the late 20th century, and is restricted in its usage by members of the Syrian Orthodox Church. The fact that proponents of aramnahraim.org and a few thousand in the diaspora refer to all of Mesopotamia's Christians as Aramaeans does not suffice to qualify "Aramaean" as a legitimate term on par with Assyrian and Syriac. There is at least a significant amount of agreement between the two latter terms across all denominations, whereas "Aramaean" is scarcely agreed upon, if at all, by all Assyrians. --Šarukinu (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out (again) that identification with the ancient Aramaeans did not begin in the 20th century, but has been extant among the Syriacs throughout their history, also in the East Syriac tradition. Please check out Urhoy, which is perfectly sourced. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute this at all. It still needs to be kept separate from a discussion of permissible terms for the group in contemporary, notable, English language sources. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Moksha is a Finnic language spoken (also) in Siberia. However, you deleted Finnic from the Indigenous peoples of Siberia article. Were you mistaken, or is Moksha not an indigenous language? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you may be right. However, note how most of the regions mentioned in the article are not in Siberia. This would need some further research. I would be pleased to have you helping with this article. Already so we can get a break from this unpleasant Assyrian stuff. dab (𒁳) 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I#Dbachmann. Relata refero (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how is this an "incident"? What happened to notifying people if you have an issue with them? Or to (gasp) acutally participating in discussing an issue on the relevant talkpages? dab (𒁳) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a good thing this went to ANI, since it made the problem widely known. I am now watching Assyrian people and Names of Syriac Christians. That's all I am doing for now because it's still way too confusing for me. Perhaps I will try to make a table summarising the major POVs to help me get an idea of what's going on. Then all the major protagonists can cooperate in bashing me for getting important details wrong. Should be good for creating a group identity, but this will take some time. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, I am often myself tempted to tout problem articles at ANI, but this is simply not what that noticeboard is for. The real problem is that nobody reacts to RFCs any more. I would certainly welcome you dedicating some attention to this, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac) which is intended as the kind of "introduction" to the problem you are looking for. I am peeved because the people forum-shopping at ANI always go ad hominem, trying to portray my efforts towards neutrality as "admin abuse" and what not. Looking into this, you will see that my position is exactly as yours, I am an outsider with no stakes in this. I simply happen to have invested the time needed to grok the problem so that I am now interested in fixing the problem and enforce encyclopedicity and neutrality. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already looked at the pages you mention, but I still need more time. By the way, are you aware of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard? If you ever want to renew the attention to these articles, that or WP:AN might be better options than ANI. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not as a rule go forum shopping with problem articles, because in my experience the resonance is seldom worth it. But I do feel that bogus reports to WP:ANI should be more consistently moved to WP:POVN. A report of the current goings on could have made in good faith to WP:POVN. The report to ANI that was actually made had little to do with good faith. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but I dare say the effect was the same anyway since most admins are perfectly capable of seeing the wider picture. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dab

If I can draw you back to an old issue, I've recently added a new section to Archaeoastronomy that relates to the article you started on Archaeoastronomy and Vedic chronology. I'd appreciate it if you could look over the paragraph on the Indian material in the light of the refs you've read.

Thanks. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have two candidates for CU on Wikisource, and we need to accumulate 25 votes in favour in order to be approved. While I am one of the candidates, I dont mind whether you vote for or against me; this note is just to ensure that you know that as you are a serious contributor to Wikisource, and we dont have many, your input is desirable at this stage. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the note. I'll look into it. dab (𒁳) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sword-skeleton theory has been nominated for RfD. Please see the discussion here. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallur looks like your specialty, see Talk:Hallur.--Berig (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was your tin pottery on Dharmic Religions and other articles, that behooved the likes of AnishShah19 to claim that Jainism arose as a parallel and an independent faith as the historical Vedic religion, perhaps preceding even that. I've weathered a near infinite-block and countless run-ins with admins trying to bring that jackass to stop his stupid edits, that claim Jainism began parallel to historical Vedic religion.

None of other Indian editors came to assist me to keep Anish at bay, and so in the interest of "encyclopedicity", I hope you might help the Indian Religions article from going into the dumps. Glance through the talk if you can, but try to do something there, as I can't seem to talk sense into Anish. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge, Jainism did "arise in parallel" to the Vedic tradition. But as always, WP:RS says you can mention dissenting opinions provided they were published academically. dab (𒁳) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It arose in parallel with Vedanta, and not historical Vedic religion. Its earliest practitioners did have similarities to outcast naked ascetics mentioned in the Vedas i.e. the 'Munis' and 'Vratyas', but so did the Shaivas, Ajinkyas, Sankhyas and many others (McEvilley et al). Jain and Buddhist monks alone didn't inherit the muni-vratya lineage.

Anyway, try to do (or not) whatever you can. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit too much!!! I dont know why I (and you too) tolerate this abuse?--Anish (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look, I cannot look after every article on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with one another, try civilized debate along the lines of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. dab (𒁳) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok "documented history" seems technically more accurate than outright "founding of ...". Just some serious advice : Do look into these articles a tad more often than continuing to fine-chisel other totally obscure ones. This fell to deaf ears, when told to some others. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention........but I meant "tin pottery", "Jackass"and "Stupid Edits" as abuse.--Anish (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh, yes, IAF will get himself banned over NPA one of these days. You should be pleased he keeps falling into that trap. dab (𒁳) 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right. As long as such people remain unblotted by even a single warning, rest assured I am fine. Thanks to your needless deletion of the DR page, Anish's PA's have gone unnoticed. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whatever. I'm not your babysitter. I block people for disruptive edits, and for extreme insults, but I do not clamp down shouting WP:NPA over somebody sounding generally annoyed. Others might, standards do vary. dab (𒁳) 11:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message earlier itself. "Generally annoyed" is what a biased (and suspiciously Jain) admin excused to block me twice. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the unintentional blanking of the Etymology of Rus article. It was some kind of glitch that happened when I was reverting the latest edit, please see the history of summaries, about my intentions. Thanks for catching it. Your persistent stance against all sorts of cooks is appreciated. I did not interfere with when MoP's but I was just too burned out. I commented on that in different RfA. Cheers, --Irpen 14:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can help here. There is an endless revert war between Azeri and Armenians on weather Armenia or Osroene (Assyria) was the first Christian nation. The war is spilling into Edessa, Mesopotamia as well. Chaldean (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since that is a rather futile question, I am quite happy to let the nationalists keep each other busy over it: prevents them from doing damage elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I changed the copyright status of Image:Wadi el-Hol inscriptions drawing.jpg to {{PD-old}} because you can't copyright a copy of a text whose copyright has expired. Same goes for photos, as long as they're of a 2-D surface. — kwami (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

photos of 2-d surfaces, yes. Drawings, unfortunately, no. dab (𒁳) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True for a free-hand drawing. But tracings, yes, at least according to the copyright people at Commons. A simple tracing of a text or piece of art, or a tracing of a photo of a text or piece of art, retains the copyright of the original. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes. But a "tracing" is a mechanical reproduction. I seriously doubt the case at hand qualifies as such. If you have ever tried to "trace" ancient inscriptions, you will know that a lot of interpretation goes into the process. Two independent "tracings" sometimes will hardly be recognizable as representing the same object. But as long as nobody objects to the tag, I am certainly happy to have the image. We have many similar cases such as Image:Maumanorig drawing.png. I prefer keeping these on Wikipedia, not commons, tagged as non-free, because if they are moved to commons we risk losing them completely (they will be deleted on en-wiki as redundant, and may then be deleted from commons by the unfree content police). --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate concern. However, so far I have had no problems on Commons with such things, such as the dozens of hand-drawn tracings in the various Rongorongo articles. I've asked at the copyright desk there, and people have been unanimous in their opinion. (Only a few people answered, but no-one objected.) I've only gotten objections to photos of the texts, if they show that the surface is 3-D. Normally you'd be right about copyrighting interpretations, but in this case the epigraphers were doing their best not to be creative, to make as exact a reproduction of the text as possible. That is, their intention was to make something that's not copyrightable. You could also argue it's a text, and copies of texts are not copyrightable just because they're misspelled. Would you mind relabeling the image, and replacing it here on Wikipedia as fair use if things change and it gets deleted? — kwami (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I am aware that actual copyright law and the community's understanding of copyright law isn't always congruent :) and since it is the community, not the law, that gets images deleted, we might as well play along. I would sumbit, however, that these drawings do not necessarily represent something intended "not to be creative". The academics making them are experts in their field, and they know perfectly well that their expertise flows into it, and that the drawing represents an interpretation, not a reproduction. dab (𒁳) 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the merger of the old Nordic race article into the current Nordic theory already some time ago, and reworded the lead. From it's scope it would be appropriate to move this article now to Nordic race; Except for some people who apparently don't want the Nordic race / Nazi connection debated and are rioting on the talk page: [8]

Anyway, moving the article would require some effort, since the old discussion page of Nordic race has to be archived somewhere. I guess this is the reason why no administrator has done the page move by now. So, if you have the time, could you do the move? Zara1709 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your approach, and I would submit that talkpage rants by anonymuses are without relevance. --dab (𒁳) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, do I have a few points for your bold actions:

1) Discuss before you move articles. Your position as an administrator does not entitle you to a priveledge that allows you to edit at will.

2) Of course the article is going to be Assyria. Originally it was part of a series of articles relating to Assyrian history, not Persian history. It was about Assyrians under Persian rule, not about Persians ruling Assyria. Read the article's title. Your move to Persian Mesopotamia now does not make sense for this matter as the article was about Assyria as a Province. Note the difference. Tourskin (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True point, but the Persians divided it up into two regions for their own administrative purposes and make it easier for themselves to govern; the references I have provided talk of the two provinces being closely united together, even rebelling at the same time, having the same ethnicity, being once part of the same kingdom before. If we do split it up into two different articles, it will be a repitition, since the provinces were similar. Tourskin (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... which would make this the article on ... wait for it ... Persian Mesopotamia. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thats were we move on to my next point - this article is about Assyrians as Persian subjects, not about Persians as Assyrian rulers. The article focuses primarily on what happened to the Assyrians. Tourskin (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

except... that we have no sources on any of this. The article discusses Mesopotamia under Persian rule, regardless of ethnic fantasies. You are free to come up with anything you can reference properly, including "Assyrians under Persian rule". Try to see this from an outside perspective. We do not assume by default that our readers are obsessed with the Assyrian ethnic essence. dab (𒁳) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion tobe continued below, k?Tourskin (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dab, Can you take a quick look on this article since there seems to be a very lame edit-war developing regarding the inclusion of the Thelema section (here is the permlink since the section is currently deleted), which some editors find "avedic", and sacrilegious. See discussion here and here. I will be logging off now but look forward to hearing your opinion, irrespective of whether you agree with me or not. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and helpful revision. Wikipedia often seems to be a microcosm of the real world, where minor issues are blown up into major ideological battles, while significant problems persist and are ignored. C'est la vie. Abecedare (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that we are finally beginning to reach a peaceful compromise on the subject, as opposed to the potential edit wars and blocks I had feared. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dab. Do you think adding CatDiffuse to Category:Ancient peoples would be justified? Aryaman (☼) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy and believe me, the merging is much better than your suggested renaming. I hope you will get over it soon and will continue your work on this topic. I count on you not to leave it out of frustration but cope with it in a constructive way. --Tubesship (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merging will mean removing the country infobox. I cannot imagine you consider the Republic of Kosovo unworthy of a dedicated article? --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this was not a kind of a pre-announced act of vandalism, because the removing of that infobox would be considerd as such an act of vandalism. You should not let your frustration get you so far to do this. --Tubesship (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense. Do you want an article on the Republic of Kosovo, yes or no? If yes, call it Republic of Kosovo and add the infobox. If not, do an article on Kosovo (region) and mention the self-declared Republic in passing, without infobox. We don't put country infoboxes on articles on "geopolitical regions", let alone disputed territories. Your talk of "vandalism" is a disconcerting show of bad faith (or, in the unlikely case that you are serious, failure to WP:AGF). Calling veteran editors "vandals" has hardly ever done the caller any good, so I would change my approach here if I were you. I am not "frustrated" at all, because I have no stakes in the Kosovo question at all, and no emotional involvement: I don't care if the RoK is recognized or not. The only thing I do care about is proper implementation of WP:NPOV. As long as the status of the RoK is disputed, we will bloody well treat it as disputed. As soon as the dispute is resolved, I will be more than happy to reflect this as well. I must say it is pretty obvious, on the other hand, that you are suffering from considerable emotional involvement in the question. Correct me, but you seem to represent the point of view that the RoK is legal. That's a respectable point of view, peace to you, but it is only one point of view in a dispute. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am not the only one with that standpoint. There is and will always be an info box in Kosova like there is one in Croatia and other countries, see the discussion at the article. And please stop threatening me just because I am a newcomer. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are not "the only one". This is the no-quarter "pro-Albanian" position. I am sure millions of ethnic Albanians share it. Unfortunately, it violates Wikipedia core policy. It is irrelevant how many people share your patriotic sentiment, as long as it violates Wikipedia policy, we will not be able to implement it. I fail to see where I "threaten" you. I just told you "peace to you". And I pointed out Wikipedia policy to you because you are a newcomer: Take note that WP:NPOV is not negotiable, and that persistent failure to comply with the house rules may fall under WP:BLOCK: that's not a threat, it's a statement of fact for your information. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not threat me with a block. Fine. I hope this will also not happen to you if you remove the info box but it could as WP:NPOV is not negotiable, and that persistent failure to comply with the house rules may fall under WP:BLOCK: that's not a threat, it's a statement of fact for your information. But nevertheless I will ask for such a block if you remove the info box and I am sure I wont be the only one. Please continue this discussion on the article dicussion page because it concerns not only both of us. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so you decided to troll rather than discuss in good faith. Your decision. Have fun. dab (𒁳) 10:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobites might be unambiguous, it's also pejorative; West Syriacs is just as unambiguous, and neutral. Would you please refrain from using this term and move the article? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I agree with West Syriacs. I still completely fail to see how "Jacobites" is pejorative, and I don't think you have provided any quotable source yet that says it is. It certainly doesn't strike me as pejorative, nor does the CathEnc appear to use it at all pejoratively. dab (𒁳) 16:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't provided a reliable source that supports the term Jacobites either, and you persist in imposing that term. It is -- except for India -- not used by the church itself, it was coined by outsiders.

But what's more important: it's incorrect. The term Jacobite refers to Jacob Baradaeus, who built the Syriac Orthodox hierarchy. Jacobite should therefore link to Syriac Orthodox Church. The article is however about the West Syriac community, which include Syriac Catholics and a few Protestants. Hence I repeat my request to move the article to West Syriacs. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, I've already pointed out the Catholic Encyclopedia uses it as you can verify here. I also repeat that I agree with your proposed move. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the fact that the RCC believes the Syriac Orthodox to be a split-off from the "real" church, the CathEnc might not be considered a reliable source in terms of labelling non-Catholics.

Because there is already a redirect West Syriacs, I cannot move the article, an admin needs to do that, that's why I requested you to do so. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh, Benne, show me some "reliable source". All of these "Syriacs" articles are so badly referenced that they should properly be deleted merely for that reason. It isn't my fault, nor is it yours, that there appear to be no quotable sources on all this stuff. I sometimes believe most of this ethnic business boils down to expatriate teenage nationalist fantasies. The on-wiki behaviour of people interested in it certainly suggests as much. I am happy to have articles on all sorts of Syriac ethnic subgroups, provided you can build them on academic sources. As it stands the CathEnc is pretty much our only source on the division. Please stop going around making claims (such as on the allegedly "deprecating" nature of a term) you have no possibility of substantiating. ok? Anything goes, provided we have good sources. No sources - no articles. dab (𒁳) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're complaining to the wrong guy. I never started this article, all I object against is the title. I agree that West Syriacs should be merged into a common Syriacs article (which should unambiguously be titled Syriacs, in my humble opinion), but for the time being, the article in question should be moved, something you agree with, as you've stated twice.

So what's the fuss about? You agree with my proposed move, so would you please move it? I, as a regular editor don't have the right to do so, since there is already a redirect with the same name, it takes an admin to do it. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinoin can't be humble, since your a Aramean activist. However, I do agree the term jacobite is wrong, since its rejected by the Church itself. I still think the page would be good under Syriac-Aramean people title. Chaldean (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nothing of the kind. This is idiotic. I want to keep Wikipedia clean of nationalist sentiment and propaganda. Which, of course, consistently exposes me to accusations that I am a nationalist myself, of course always of the "opposite" camp. Nothing new there. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chaldean was talking about me. Now would you please move the page? (I've requested this a few times, you've said you agreed with the move twice, so what's keeping you?) --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: West Syrian Rite: The rite used by the Jacobite sect in Syria and by the Catholic Syrians. Hence, "Jacobites" refers only to the Syriac Orthodox, the article in question is about all the West Syriacs. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you are right (and you appear to be), this again opens the question of whether we have any source treating "the Jacobite sect in Syria and the Catholic Syrians" as a single group called "West Syriacs". dab (𒁳) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entschuldigung, I hadn't noticed that you had already moved the article. By the way, I think the article should be split into a common Syriacs article, and into an Aramaeans article. There is no need for an article about followers of the Western rite. But because other editors start moving on their own initiative, things got a bit confusing. I believe we need an expert here, because there are too few sources, and many of the sources we do have, are partial. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 17:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to congratualte you on earning my anger. You have succeeded in removing the word "Assyria" from the article and thus fullfilled a part of your anti-Assyria agenda, without me being able to take part in discussion - do you not know what a concensus is? It means you wait for others until a decision is made! In the past summer, I have seen some of your more disruptive trolling - a term I reserve only for those whom I truly believe troll. Yet I tried to make myself resist judging you on first impressions. However, I have also seen you refuse to assist the dispute with Osroene article stating that its better to let the nationalists take it out there. And now I see you have attacked this article too. A better wording, a much better wording would be "Assyria under the Persian Empire", since Persian mesopotamia could mean a wide range of times. How many times have I told you that the article was about Assyrians under Persian rule?

I don't know how you became an administrator, you have an intoxicating bias against Assyrian articles. If your aim was to incite my anger, congratualtions again, but I assure I will be the better man and not express it as you have in your edits.Tourskin (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's bullshit. I have no such agenda, and I have justified my edits. I am tired of mad nationalists unamenable to reason, and I have no interest in debating with people obviously lacking in good faith or respect for Wikipedia policy. You are also wrong. "Assyria" is a political entity which collapsed in 612 BC. Mesopotamia, otoh, is a region, which passed from Assyrian rule to Persian rule. --dab (𒁳) 08:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is wrong, now look who is losing their temper and using swear words. Assyria is a term, used both by the Natives to refer to the land they inhabited (by the Assyrians) and later by the Romans too. Doesn't the sources of the article state that it was governed as "Athura"? So what is your problem with that then? Tourskin (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not mad nationalists. We just want the truth too, and we assumed, that is me and Elias when we began this article that it was called Assyria.Tourskin (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tourskin, you are not mad, or if you are, only in the sense of "angry". But you need to collaborate with people, and show some good grace when references are presented that take an article in a different direction than indicated by your gut feeling. You are far too emotional about this topic for an encyclopedic discussion. dab (𒁳) 07:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dab, thank you very much for recognizing the possibility that I am not mad, and that I am willing to talk. Now that this revelation has dawned upon you, we may begin a good discussion. Now then, do the references not say the word "Athura', time and time again? I am not angry or emotional, just a little tired. Rather than defend worthy referenced paragraphs, I could be improving upon it or editting some Byzantine Empire articles. You will see that I am rightfully proud of my major contributions. You will also see that I am a well educated individual who does not let anger get involved. I admit I am frustrated, but thats only because whenever you and I do some editting, we find each other on the other side. After this is over, I propose we jointly edit an article to promote some good faith - what say you? Tourskin (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, I'm editing lots of articles all the time. You are welcome to join anytime. For the "Assyrian" topic, my advice would be, if you feel emotional about it, avoid touching it. If you do want to edit it, you need to forget you are Assyrian (or whatever you are, just forget you are involved personally). You will then collect references not as soundbites supporting whatever it is you "know" already and weigh references by importance instead. It works with every topic you aren't attached to emotionally. Since I am not attached emotionally to the Assyrian question at all, it works for me there without any effort. Oh yes, I was a "grade A student" myself. No guarantee your brain doesn't swich off in case of love or nationalism, unfortunately. If you want my advice on that too, it doesn't look good to parade around your good grades. Anything below a PhD isn't really all that relevant for touting your expertise anyway. And on Wikipedia, degrees don't help you anyway, you need to deliver expertise, not wave around certificates that you have any. dab (𒁳) 17:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't parade my grades, I just leave them there to relate to fellow A level students from england, cos I'm in America and they don't mean much to parade over here. I do my best to emotionally detach myself. But what makes you think that you are a better editor than me? Perhaps being skeptical of such "nationalism" is best, then only facts and references info can come out - I am not as meticulous as you. However, I can assure that I am meticulous in two areas; Byzantium and Assyrian articles. Believe me, I am not out there trying to find "a truth", but the truth. I have asked historical professors for their opinions and looked but cannot find any conclusive evidence against my current beliefs regarding Assyrians. Anyways, I'm not proud of everything Assyrians have done, the fact that we don't have a country says something.

Furthermoore, I never believed that "waving around certificates" that are much lower than a phd will do much good, but it does prove that I can deliver expertise, as the articles that I made prove so too. I do in fact follow the two rules you have given me. I think we just disagree on how much I have followed them, no? Well dab, I have named the article with assyria because of the references given and such. I am considering changing it but I really do think that the word Assyria suits well, not because I am assyrian - no, but because the references say so. This is still assyria, not the country but a geopolitical region under Persian rule; that includes Sassanid and Achaemanid rule.

Tourskin (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic warfare

I see that you have been invited to wikiproject Celts. I wa sthinking of making an article dedicated to Celtic warfare, since this is not well covered in the Celts article. As soon as I get some books, I'll start. Wanna edit in? Or are you too busy? You can just check out what I am doing only. Tourskin (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool. I note we already have a (poor) article on Celtic warfare. Also note that we already have Gothic and Vandal warfare and Anglo-Saxon warfare, etc.. I think instead of more "$ETHNIC warfare" articles (Assyrian warfare? :p) subordinate to Ancient warfare it might be more useful to do a more comprehensive of Warfare in Iron Age Europe or similar. Note also Iron Age sword. dab (𒁳) 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing here that would warrant the generic cleanup tags added by [the Vietnamese(?) anon known as] 123. This is a well developed article. Go easy on it. Feel free to make constructive suggestions and use localized tags to point out problems. Don't manhandle it like that. Also, what's with the constant prancing around about the sexual bits? Yes, there is some sex in Norse mythology, sheesh 123, are you experiencing puberty or something? dab (𒁳) 17:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well developed article? Is it a joke? Before I revamped it, it's a POS.

Who's Vietnamese? Who's experiencing puberty? Citation needed. Am I black? Am I working in Asia? It's none of your concerns.

Do you have any knowledges about Norse Mythology? At least you know that it's written by Christians, right? The so-called Norse Mythology is a bunch of stories written by Christians. You do realise that Norse Paganism is a religion, not comedies, right? Sex? It's not sex. It's prostitution. It's insults. Do people usually insult their gods as cuckolds and their goddesses as hookers?

Odin's wife, Frigg, had sex with a servant? Who wrote it? A follower of an Archbishop, who repeatedly stated that Odin is a false god who tricked people into worshipping him; and other stupid stuffs? Freyja had sex with 4 dwarves for a necklace? Who wrote it? What's that story? Oh Freyja is Odin's concubine, they turned people to undead, and the great Christian lord Olaf Tryggvason and his brave Christened men dissolved the pagan curse. How credible.

You mean pagan gods and goddesses are cuckolds and hookers because Christian writers say so? Where's the original pagan writings which stated that pagan Norsemen worshiped hooker goddesses? Which pagan Norsemen said that their goddesses are hookers?

About you, there's two things:

1. If you did not contribute anything to this article, you have no rights to say anything.
2. If you did contribute to this article, and it's still this poor, you should talk less and do more. 123.19.52.89 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP is Vietnamese. I don't know where or who you are, and I frankly don't care. Yes, your preoccupation with sex in Norse myths strikes me as puerile. Your rants against the authors of the Eddas is misplaced. At least we do have the myths. As opposed to Germany, where all that survives fits on about half a page. If you want to discuss the question of possible distortions, you are welcome to do that as long as you base your edits on academic sources, avoiding WP:SYN. No, I see nothing wrong or even unusual about "prostitution" in a polytheistic mythology. dab (𒁳) 07:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't know anything about the "Norse Mythology". Ok. What "myths" are you talking about? When did I rant about the author of the Eddas? The Eddas do not have anything about Frigg or Freyja's "sex". You are really misinformed. What "polytheistic mythology"? Stories written by Christians are "polytheistic mythology"? At least you know that Christians and pagans are enemies, right? It's common sense. And it's not about "prostitution". It's about some Christians, enemies of paganism, wrote a story to claim that a pagan goddess is a prostitute. Is it too hard to understand? You don't know anything, so there's no point talking to you. You rant about the Odin article when I tried to improve it, and you did nothing but to rant that it's "well developed". No it's not. 123.19.62.226 (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's a suggestion. You take your emotional idiosyncrasy to blogspot or a similar private venue. If you want to present interpretations of medieval Norse literature, mythological or not, on Wikipedia, make sure they are directly attributed to academic publications. That's the long and short of it, and I am not interested in further debate with you. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. Why should I debate with someone who does not know about the subject anyway? 123.19.56.202 (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. I am glad we have come to an agreement. dab (𒁳) 10:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Kosovo (geopolitical region), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo (geopolitical region) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please take a look at this article when you can? It's some bizarre povfork (with Macedonian nationalist undertones, it seems). Thought I'd ask you since you are an admin with knowledge of the topic(s) and frequent POV(s) involved and as such might bring this to a swift end. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this clearly falls under speedy deletion as blatant nonsense. I've done the honours. dab (𒁳) 17:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he keeps at it (Koine). 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still going through edits. We mentioned already that Real Photos from the Bhavishya Purana and all Vedas that hold information about Mahamad will be added. So either you wait for the real photos to appear as Refs or when i get the book proving Mahamad in scriptures as refs. --99.238.149.85 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mahāmada

An editor has nominated Mahāmada, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahāmada and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hymns of the Atharvaveda

Hello, I just went through an book i recieved from local its called Hymns of the Atharvaveda i also have the CD and the Text version. and Mahamad is actually mentioned in Hindu Scriptures. I provided all Page numbers and Hymn Line Numbers etc... If you need it to be more better let me know cause i have the book on me. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have done no such thing. You have inserted idle claims that "Kaurama is Muhammad" and similar. How stupid are you taking us for? dab (𒁳) 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is Directly out of the book. What you want me to do make up an holy book ?--DWhiskaZ (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what utter nonsense.

"Out of the book": Listen to this, ye men, a laud of glorious bounty shall be sung. Thousands sixty, and ninety we, O Kaurama, among the Rusamas have received. (nothing to do with Muhammad)

your addition: The praised one (Muhammad). He is Kaurama: the prince of peace or the emigrant, who is safe, even amongst a host of 60,090 enemies. (WP:SYN is an euphemism for pie-in-the-sky nonsense in this case)

I certainly hope for your sake you are not serious about this. You are just making stuff up as you go along, or, worse, you are just copying random idiotic online nonsense [9]. Wikipedia isn't for that. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen buddy i told you already its part of the Atharvaveda book. i didnt change anything. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously its going to be similar as [10] because its content that out of the Atharvaveda maybe you should go pick one up for yourself as well. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure, buddy, the Atharvaveda mentions Muhammad, and your "team at Toronto University" has just made the discovery. Looking forward to your publication, in some academic journal, NOT on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 11:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. it sure will be a big hit and top of the line you can check up on it anytime. If you want to contribute to it just pick up those Vedas, Puranas and holy books that are listed. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've "picked up those Vedas" ten years ago, and I assure you Muhammad isn't mentioned. The Puranas are a different story of course. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are trying to network happily, and complaints about your endless POV-pushing keep on intruding. Apparently you're censoring someone's Holy Book? Where would we be if everyone did that sort of thing? As a community, we would be finished! --Relata refero (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy these little notes, Rr, and with section headings such as this one I suppose it is only a matter of time before some angry nationalist will cite you as his ally in their fight against my appalling anti-whatever bias. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward with glee to that occasion. Far too few angry nationalists consider me worthy of their love and gratitude. --Relata refero (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I am just plain tired of you pulling my strings. My arms are sore and my joints need oiling. Abecedare (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shut up, sockbot, and do my bidding! dab (𒁳) 19:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Abecedare (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I don't know why we invest any time in this sort. Except it can be amusing in a slightly perverse way (paging Dr. Boubouleix) :) dab (𒁳) 19:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, once again the the Assyrians have come down like a wolf on the fold, and his cohorts are gleaming in purple and gold over at WP:ANI#User:Dbachmann 2. This time, I don't even think you need to show up. --Relata refero (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

these guys truly wouldn't recognize sanity if it was delivered to their living rooms bound and gagged. dab (𒁳) 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the problem with the title Syriac people? You were the only one complaining. the title Syriac people were perfect. The title Syriacs (Jacobites) and Western SYriacs is very annoying and confusing. If there is a western syriacs there must be eastern syriacs. Do you understand the problem? The title Syriac people were perfect. History, traditions, culture is different with the History, traditions, culture in article Assyrian people. I think the best solution would be title Syriac people. I want to build on the article, but cant when you always redirect to 100 different pages. Syriac people is the best title. VegardNorman (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you know what, VegardNorman? You being up to your neck in WP:COI, there is no point of you even talking to me until you cite some WP:RS. As soon as you do so, of course, I will consider your point carefully. --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO one likes you as an editor here in wikipedia. you are just starting conflicts and messes everything. You are creating titles, and redirects as you want and does not care what other says.I beg you to leave this whole syriac-assyrian-aramean thing. Since there is two groups callin gthem selfs for assyrains and other group call hem selfs for syriacs, there should be two articles. VegardNorman (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speak for yourself. This isn't Natio-pedia, but it would look a lot like Natio-pedia if it wasn't for me and other editors with a dedication to policy. I am asking you to cite your sources. The Assyrian topic in particular would be an unsalvageable mess if it wasn't for my attention. We are finally getting somewhere. There may be naming issues left to sort out, but at last a reader without prior knowledge can look at Assyrian people and figure out what all this brouhaha is even about. I am not asking you to like me. Wikipedia is not a social network . dab (𒁳) 16:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Assyrian topic in particular would be an unsalvageable mess if it wasn't for my attention - You honestly believe that? I dare you to leave all Assyrian related pages alone for 30 days, and I promise you me, vegard, and other Wikipeidas will work in good intentions to improve all of the important articles, make them less confusing then you have made them then you have made it to be as of right now. Then we can have 3rd person to come and judge for themselves to see if we have improved the subject or not. If they think they pages are at a worse conditions, then we will revert all of our edits. Will you accept the challange? Chaldean (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:COI. I am the "third person". dab (𒁳) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well dab, I don't know how to say this to you; your third view has harmed Assyrian related pages rather then help. Just the latest example, this edit [[11]]. You don't even check to see if your edit was helpful or not. Did you not realize all those pages are redirects? Chaldean (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to leave this topic alone now. Patriotic zeal is completely misplaced on Wikipedia. If you want to be patriotic, try writing a blog. dab (𒁳) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm I being patriotic? I am simply currecting your never ending mistakes. Like the one I just brought up. How did you conclude that to be a patriotic zeal edit? Your edit was a mistake, yet you refuse to admit that, when it clearly was. Why do you continue with your ways of moving pages without discussing? Don't you think you owe it to the rest of Wiki community to reply to your post, rather then just giving a 20 minute window and move the page right away? And dab, I'm the one asking you to leave the topic, now. And I am not alone. Chaldean (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this edit of your dab [[12]]? Again, you don't even look at the page to see if you have done something very wrong. Was my revert of your edt another example of my patirotic zeal? Chaldean (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, you have clearly violated WP:CON on the Assyria (Persian province). We continue to debate the subject at the talk page. Can you please move it back to its original title. Chaldean (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And i'm not alone when i'm asking you to leave the topic, you can't have a normal discussion, you ask for facts, and when I provide them you just ignore them. The TriZ (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, Chaldean. You consistently ignore Wikipedia core policy in favour of your puerile patriotism, and now you suddenly come complaining about adherence to policy. If it comes to that, you should have been permabanned from editing a long time ago. It is simply not possible to have a meaningful discussion with you. That's not a problem, we get a lot of editors like that, and we tend to show them the door. I am not interested in further discussion with you. If you can find some adult editor representing you (mentor or similar), I'll be happy to talk to them. dab (𒁳) 11:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is you dab who continues to break Wiki rules without a care. You have violated WP:NPA, WP:CON on repeated occasions, WP:OWN, on and on. I don't know how your work hasn't been put to check by the higher Wiki board. You should try to continue to work with the rest of Wikipedia's community and not try to silence it. We can work together efficently, but it is going to be your decision. Chaldean (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. It doesn't become any truer if you just keep repeating it. Wikipedia policy comes first. WP:CON, WP:DR etc. come later, and are intended as procedures between editors that try to implement policy, not between bona fide editors and pov-warriors. Edit within policy and we'll get along fine. Please avoid cluttering my talkpage further until you have something constructive you wish to say. dab (𒁳) 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been ready since day one to work with you constructively. But when you remove almost all of my work, specially when it is sourced, without giving any reason, how do you call that working together? (This time I am refering to you removing the fact that the Assyrians were allowed to govern themselves throughout persian rule, that I backed with a legit source.) Chaldean (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remove your "sourced work". I always explain my rationale clearly. The diff you point to is a revert of a complex edit which may have included some things of value, but was mainly a continuation of your pov-warring, and included a revert on your part. If you want to make valid, neutral, on-topic additions, do it, but don't combine it with revert-warring, or don't complain if you are reverted in turn. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, here is the edit. There was no revert included, nothing. The point is, I am more then willing to work with you, but by moving pages when there is a discussion going on, and removing sourced information just because you think its a nationalist edit is simply going the wrong direction. Let us discuss the edits. Let us examine them on the talk pages. Now I have given you a very good reason why the page should be Assyria (Persian province), in the talk page I have shown the King himself Darius I has declared it as a Province in his inscripts. So can you move it back to its original name (or at least just leave it at its current title of Assyrians under the Persian Empire.)Chaldean (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I find it funny when you commented "I understand you just did a google books search."

and then come back with;

". Ilya Gershevitch (1985) states: "it is now certain that Athura cannot have been an administrative unit in the Persian Empire"[13"

As if you done something different then me. Chaldean (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your problem is not that you did a google search. Your problem is that you just did the search, and didn't bother to actually read what you had found. dab (𒁳) 17:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, evidence is far against what you have suggested, so where can we go to have his settled by an outside view. Chaldean (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how about you ask User:Folantin if he could unravel this for you, seeing you are clearly not up to it. dab (𒁳) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to (work with someone other then you (no offense)), but I don't believe Folantin is an Admin. Chaldean (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what does adminship have to do with this? I've never taken admin action against you myself (although I probably could have). dab (𒁳) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have switched my strategy with you in that I have been bending my back to you and saying please almost everytime I confront you and now you threaten me with an admin action? After all these redirects created, only an admin can move it to its proper title. Folantin doesn't have that power. Chaldean (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you suggested merging these two pages. I see the value in merging, but I have a different suggestion. Let's discuss it over on the post-theism talk page. Mmyotis (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for holding off. I'm in a crunch right now, but when I get a chance I'll see what I can add to the article to distguish it from the postchristianity article. Mmyotis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dab. I recently went over Meldorf fibula, adding some information and doing a general copy-edit. I hope you approve. The main reason for my stopping by: I have Düwel's book (the original source for the image) in front of me, and apparently the folks at Handbok i norrøn filologi had a liking for Odenstedt's reading, because they scanned it in upside down. The original drawing has the pin at the top, as it probably would have been when worn, considering its design. It's no biggie, but seeing as the directions as they appear in the text (i.e. 'left to right', etc.) are directly connected with the image, I was wondering if there's some smooth way one can rotate an image without uploading it again? Thanks in advance. Aryaman (☼) 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on, I suppose you can just flip it and re-upload it, no big deal (I don't have any personal preference as to the correct reading). dab (𒁳) 11:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. By the way, I'm also working on Bülach fibula, and just uploaded a rendering of the inscription. My goal is to get some of these runic inscription articles (incl. Pforzen buckle) up to B-class status. I would like to eventually add a "Selected artifact" module to the Ancient Germanic culture portal, and need some good content to get it going. If you know of some good relevant articles (runic or otherwise,) please let me know. Thanks again. Aryaman (☼) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now working over the Gothic inscriptions, in particular, the Ring of Pietroassa. You can see the considerable expansion the article is going through in my Sandbox. I noticed you were important in the creation of Gothic runic inscriptions, and I was wondering if you could track down some of the readings listed in the original related to the ring, as they would help fill out the Inscription section. Also, any general suggestions or help on the article would be appreciated. The next issue will be where to put that Sandbox article: either to put it back in Gothic runic inscriptions for the time being, or to create it's own article with a summary, and then begin expanding the other Gothic finds until they can stand on their own. The Gothic article could then focus on the arguments for and against the existence of a Gothic Futhark. Suggestions/advice here are welcome. Aryaman (☼) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good source for tracking down the inscriptions, so no worries there. However, I would still appreciate advice or constructive criticism regarding where this 'article' should go. I have considered breaking some of it off and adding it to Pietroasele treasure - though, a good version of that article would need lots of work, and I'm only interested in the hoard as it relates to the ring. I have tried to keep the text focused on the ring, as it should be, but separating the two entirely is impossible. I just found the mineralogical reports, so they are still being worked into the text. When you need to get away from the nationalists for a few, please feel welcome to drop by my Sandbox and comment as necessary on that TalkPage. Thanks. Aryaman (☼) 13:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed what I feel to be a satisfactory draft of the article on the Ring of Pietroassa, and I think it's ready to be subjected to editing from others. Unless there are serious objections, I plan on making this its own article with a dablink from the Gothic runic inscriptions article, pretty much leaving that text as it is for the time being. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. If you prefer that I make the article before working on it, just let me know. Thanks. Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During discussion with Berig, I decided to go ahead and create the article, which can now be found at Ring of Pietroassa. Further discussion and comments will be directed there. Thanks. Aryaman (Enlist!) 16:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I've nominated the Ring of Pietroassa article for GA-status. I'm not sure if you care, but I thought I'd notify you anyways. Have a nice day. Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dbachmann! Could you please go to Commons - Image talk:Centum Satem map? There are some problems with the map you made, and it believe it's best if it was you who solved them. Thanks!

I'll try to see what I can do. Why would you leave Iberia out? The Ogre (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you!! there is a very meaningful discussion!

Tourskin (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

like, where and on what? Would you mind choosing some appropriate section heading telling me what you are complaining about now? dab (𒁳) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do u act so hard headed? Maybe if you followed the rules you wouldn't be such an asshole. Stop moving the article. In the edit history you left an infuming comment that the discussion was not going anywhere. Look here pal,

1) The references says it was Athura

2) You don't have any references saying it was not Athura. Achaemenid Persia excludes Sassanid rule, and Persian Mesopotamia is too inclusive.

You can't answer these above points, especially with regards to the references but instead call us Nazis and nationalists. I will report you soon enough - I was going to this morning but had to rush to my university and get my low-ass degree going. It will probably do shit if I report you, but atleast everyone will kow (again) how much of an asshole you are. Remember, you are an admin, not God. You do not make up rules, you follow them, just as I try to, by discussion and via references. Since you are part of this argument it is dishonorable of you to make admin edits, such as preventing me from moving the article back to Assyria under the Persian Empire. Oh wait, I forgot, you know no honor, you know only to call us Nationalists. You know, in Germany they may have had Nazis, and they may be ashamed of their past but I really could not give a @#$%. Get the @#$% over it, from your position in switzerland you seem obsessed with anti-nationalism. Tourskin (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no meaningful argument is being presented on talk - This is so stupid I don't know if its funny or down right annoying. Tourskin (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tourskin, there is no need for such strong language. We need to work together, and I know this can at times be hard. Chaldean (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst what I have said may seem offensive, and I acknowledge this, I stand accountable for it. Tourskin (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insulted, I am annoyed. What are you, a teenager? Or why do you begin spelling you as u when you are excited? I am here for encyclopedic debate, not for babysitting excitable youths. "You don't have any references saying it was not Athura" is ridiculous. You don't have any evidence it wasn't called the Land of Oz either. dab (𒁳) 07:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are an unprofessional editor. You make no academic clams whatsoever. You call me a teenager. You say I am "excited". You say my argument is to call it "Land of Oz" (no but it does say its Athura). You say you are stopping "pathetic moving warring" yet you are the one who started it and who continues it. Tourskin (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look, I am just tired of bickering with you and your compatriots over nothing at all. Edit encyclopedically and we will get along fine. Continue your disruption, and you'll continue running into me. I submit that my reaction to random kids on the internet calling me "asshole" and similar can be considered rather relaxed and professional. If I took you at all seriously as an editor I would be up in arms against your insults. As it is, I just consider you another trolling account whose time is almost up. I've seen dozens of these. dab (𒁳) 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

account whose time is almost up - language like this will get us nowhere. Instead, try to work with everyone. Chaldean (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if that is you trying, I don't want to see you not trying. Still, if you wisen up we can work together any time. Note

• WP:NPOV
• WP:RS
• WP:DUE
• WP:SYN

if you can forget you are "Assyrian" or "Chaldean" or whatever, you might be able to contribute fruitfully to these topics. For the time being, however, I would recommend you edit articles on topics you have no emotional involvement with. It's much more difficult to be a good Wikipedian if you have a personal opinion on a topic. I'll welcome you as an editor to some article unrelated to Assyria any time. For this purpose, I also suggest you change your username to something that doesn't suggest you are an obssessive single-topic pov pusher. Why not edit under your real name? Once you have enough practice, you may try editing topics closer to your heart again. dab (𒁳) 18:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My username is an old defunct password I once used. Nothing on my userpage says I'm assyrian, or on my talk page. You can check my edits and my talk page that I have never said that the Assyrians or whetever were the best. Time is almost up? Dude, I look forward to you blocking me, because I know countless editors out there who know me from my respectable contributions to Byzantium and I would like to see you fail. You automatically assume that because we defend Assyrian articles, our judgement is clouded? We're damned if we do and damned if we don't - you're not giving us chance to defend the alternate viewpoint. We're not biased and even if we were that doesn't make us wrong. And to clarify we're not biased. I would like to end this discussion and move back to the article's talk page. Tourskin (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to block you, not even over WP:NPA. I give you every chance of defending every viewpoint, providing WP:RS. We can talk about the status of Athura sensibly and in peace as soon as everyone agrees that that's the way to do it. But no, being biased means you are being wrong, on Wikipedia, due to WP:NPOV. dab (𒁳) 19:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So this is why you have given me the cold sholdier all this time? Because of my username? Interesting, I wonder what you think of User:British. If this is about my username, by all means, I'll change it just for you. Please lead me to the right place. We all have topics that we are most interested in. Yours seems to be history, so your edits are mostly on historical pages, big deal. I have done alot of work on non-Assyrian pages as well and if you feel like it, please go over my edit history and you will see a diversity in my edits. Chaldean (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have "given you the cold shoulder" not because of your username, but ever since that you have proven yourself to be childish and unreasonable on Talk:Chaldean last year. You have done nothing to rectify this impression since. The minute you start behaving like an adult, I will treat you as one. --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

You seem to be missing the point dab; I don't care if you do block me. However, I do care if you think biased opinions are wrong. That is flawed thinking. A communist might call Hitler evil and be biased but its still true that Hitler was evil. But lets leave this for now, I am not biased as you can see from my edit history I edit all sorts of articles too. Tourskin (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, hows this for a Username?Assyrian and proud of it. (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "biased opinions are wrong". I have many biases myself. Only, you will find it difficult to second-guess them, because I keep them private and don't try to impose them on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't the world. Wikipedia is a project with a very specific scope: WP:NPOV+WP:RS=WP:ENC. Your private biases belong on your private blog. dab (𒁳) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dad. Ooops, I meant dab. Assyrian and proud of it. (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't want to continue this conversation (neither do I), but in order to work better together in the future, we must coninue the dialog. I looked at the talk page of Chaldean, and I didn't see me acting like a child. Are you confusing me with the comments of User:KALMANI? That discussion you are having in the talk page was primarly between you and Elias, so I don't know how you can to that conclusion of me. Chaldean (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed the very small number of participants in that discussion. Split proposals have been submitted constantly in the past few weeks and it became clear that there was no consensus for a split. In fact, quite the opposite. People get tired of repeating the same arguments over and over, so it's natural that this particular discussion you've linked failed to draw users' interest. Whereas a rather official discussion such as the AfD brought undeniable support for the merger. Honestly I don't know why you keep pushing it. Regards, Húsönd 14:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"very small"? It was 11 people. Most of the actual noise on the page is made by two or three editors, who are hardly even aware of Wikipedia fundamentals. Nationalist trolls and similar are to be discounted when making such a call. There was no reasonable suggestion for a merge up to now. There is one now, I grant you, viz. the "Abkhazia" scenario, and I'll be prefectly happy to implement that. Your participation in all this wasn't exactly constructive. Why couldn't you have made a coherent "Abkhazia" suggestion instead of ranting at people? I am "pushing" nothing. You do not make clear why you think the situation of Kosovo is more like that of Abkhazia (no recognition) than that of Western Sahara (partial recognition), but I surmise you think so. That's fine. It would just be nicer if you could contribute coherently and constructively. dab (𒁳) 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be well-versed in history, could you please check Corduene, the page seems to contain a lot of fringe theories and questionable content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdo777 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the very reasonable comment about megaliths at Neolithic Europe! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Consensus_is_Reachable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dab. You've been a big help to me, as I attempt to become an active member of the Wikipedia community. I really appreciate it, and any additional advice/rebuke/exhortation you might offer will be accepted gladly. Currently I could use some assistance with an issue on my user page. (By the way, thanks for adding the "User Page" header for me also.) :)

As you well know, my personal POV's are less-than popular with many Wikipedia editors/users, and (as has been expected) I am already facing a...challenge concerning the content of my user page because of my stated positions on certain "controversial" topics. Please see the example below for what user Sennen goroshi is attempting to do and assist as you deem appropriate:

• Removed Position on Homosexuality (2)
• (I undid the remove)
• Removed Position (2)
• Removed Position (1)

I fully realize that I am essentially getting a taste of my own medicine. =} Before you or any other admin becomes directly involved, I was wondering if you have any advice for me on how to address the issue myself, without getting into an edit war with this user.

Thanks again for your patience and continued assistance! :)

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you sure it's useful to factor out that box code into a template? Are you foreseeing that it will be used on more than one article? The way I see it, the only effect this has is to offer yet another page location for edit-warring and another entry in everybody's watchlist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it makes the article source less messy, but yes, it could also be merged. Probably better in this case, I'm not sure. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

could you please take a look at these. Article is locked and there is some new info waiting to be added.

• Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Edit_request_Iran
• Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Edit_request_India
• Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Edit_request_Czech_Republic

Thanks,

--Avala (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be unprotected now, this is becoming too tedious. Could you ask the protecting admin, or else place a WP:RFP? dab (𒁳) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well some other editors think it's not yet time to unprotect the article but I can make a request anyway as those who are pretending to be seeking dialogue are dissing all other proposals as "bullshit" and therefore are just sabotaging. So we haven't moved much further. Could you please add those things about Iran, India and Czech Republic now because it's unclear when will unprotection take place. Thanks. --Avala (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I made a request for unprotection. --Avala (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously unprotection request has been denied. And we have trolls now trying to oppose the addition of this information on the most unbelievable excuses (just so admins would think, oh there is opposing voices let's think it over).

• Mareklug opposes Iran addition because ..... Iranian press must have translated the statement poorly. What?! Is this kind of opposition even valid? Who is Mareklug to block addition of content on a reason of suspicion of poor translation.
• India is opposed by a user Kosova2008 (no way he is opposing) because Indian ambassador to Serbia gave an interview to a Belgrade daily. He expects the interview to be given to Indian government only. Now why would Indian ambassador give an interview to an Indian government I have no idea.
• Czech Republic addition is not opposed yet but I'm sure these two are working on it.

--Avala (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to cordially remind everyone of WP:AGF, WP:VER (particularly, how to source neutrally and reliably). Intransigence and painting fellow editors as trolls is not a way to build consensus. The article was locked in the first place because of stealth and forcible reverts, a my way or the highway style of editing. This has also caused problems on maps on Commons. I believe consensus-building is being sidestepped, not engaged in. My positons, for example, have been blatantly misrepresented by Avala. I am not the sole editor expressing concern over unilateral moves, to borrow a phrase from the phenomenon we are tasked with describing in this article. And I don't lay particular credibility in any ambassador's statements made in Belgrade for the benefit of Serbian consumption. I firmly insist on the governments' own statements, such as made on official websites in Tehran and New Delhi, as we hav been sourcing those before and there is no reason to stop now, replacing them with what was said in Serbia or at a Serbian news conference, or -- imagine that -- by the Serbian Foreign Ministry or Serb State Televison on behalf of Libya. --Mareklug ^talk 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors work a bullshit is not the way to reach consensus either. If you think consensus is reached this way "I propose-others oppose-I call them bullshit and make an edit I planned in first place" you are wrong. And for probably 100th time (not joking here) - states are not required to make an official document to make a reaction. If Ahmadinejad says something, it is the reaction of Iran. He said something = he reacted. And it's interesting you made no reaction here Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Iran but now that I have made an edit request you are making a mess by laughable excuses - "Iranian journalists probably didn't translate well so let's not include it at all."--Avala (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this edit of yours [[13]]. The article it self starts with "Babylonia was a state in southern Mesopotamia, in modern Iraq". Assuristan certianly didn't include anything south of what is today Arbil, far away from what was Babylonia. So I'm not sure how you concluded Assuristan covered any part of Babylonia.Chaldean (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Chaldean (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[14]] - what you think Chaldean (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me your 5 minutes (or less):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion#Please_stop_changing_the_existing_summary_table.

Thank you so much. Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. We do need a little help here. This user has spammed 7 users (including one bot..) and deleted my replies, gave me two vandalism warnings, falsely accused me of breaking 3RR and I have no idea what he disagrees about. A little help? I don't think he gets it.. Thanks! Herunar (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to hear your opinions as soon as possible because it is really needed (See other opinions: [15],[16]). And do you think that Herunar has violated WP:NPA because his words are very offensive ([17][18][19][20]). Thank you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to a request for a third opinion regarding the name of this article. Another user has put the case for calling the article "Achaemenid Assyria" or some other combination using "Assyria". I notice that you have previously moved the article to a derivation of "Mesopotamia" - presumably the alternative case - but no-one has put the case for why this would be a better name.

Could I ask you why you think this would be better - please reply either at Talk:Persian_Mesopotamia#THIRD_OPINION, at my talk page or, of course, here. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 21:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't impossible to talk about "Assyria during the Achaemenid period" or similar in good faith, but this is a case of mindless "Assyrian" flavoured nationalism unamenable to anything remotely akin to reason. These people just want to tout "Assyria" without any real interest in actual historical context. Discussing Mesopotamia under Achaemenid rule is putting this back on encyclopedic ground. The discussion will include mention of Assyria/Athura, no doubt. Once some sort of picture emerges on what exactly academic consensus looks like, we may look into the question whether an article on "Athura" in particular is warranted. Trust that the nationalist kids will never provide such a discussion. It's the poor old encyclopedist Wikipedians that will once again have to do the work, and be ranted at for their pains by our resident "trolls in good standing". dab (𒁳) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working extensively in the subject for a good amount of time now, and if that doesn't show that I have interest in the subject itself, then I don't know how I can prove such thing to you. If anything, it is you who can care less about the subject, seeing you have abandoned the page. I don't know what it will take for you to consider WP:AGF on all users, no matter what the situation is. Your version of accusing people of nationalist interest are anybody that is related to the subject in any shape or form. By your account, you won't accept an Assyrian being a Assyriologist, or any Iranian Iranologist. I don't know whats it going to take for you to see how my edits are different from those of who you desribe me of. Chaldean (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decide if this newly created article should be redirected to Achievements of ancient Indian civilization or Ancient India, merged with some broader article on "Indian civilization" or AFDed as an innately POV list; any thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um, yes. Everything that was said on "Achievements of ancient Indian civilization" will also apply to an article titled "Contributions of Indian Civilization". --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dieter. You have reverted a map edit on Kosovo mentioning in the summary that your choice of map was more neutral. As much as I agree with you that this map should preferably be neutral to the ardently disputed case of whether Kosovo is a state or not, I am wondering why the map that you advocate would be more neutral than the other map. Both show the border between Kosovo and Serbia with the same stroke as all other international borders. Please, I am just asking out of curiosity. In deed, I prefer the same map as you. For me the reason is that it is much more detailed, while the zoom still serves the purpose to globally locate Kosovo. Tomeasy (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the edit wasn't so much over which map to choose, but where to place it. The map suggesting Kosovo is independent belongs in the "Republic of Kosovo" infobox, the one suggesting it is part of Serbia belongs in the "UNMIK" infobox. As a neutral locator map, I would advocate Image:Kosovo in Balkans.png, which shows the Kosovo region as a part of the Balkans. --dab (𒁳) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this was not the map that you had placed and that I commented on. Never mind. The map that you have just shown is, I think, excellently serving the point of having a map on top of the article which takes an NPOV stance with respect to the disputed case. I wish you good luck persuading both camps of this map's advantages. Tomeasy (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the present solution, but I would certainly support usage of the "Kosovo in Balkans.png" map as a locator map at the top infobox. dab (𒁳) 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I've been having some difficulties in the Mango article page trying to cite a statement describing the mango as the 'the food of the gods', as mentioned in the Vedas. I've had a pretty long discussion with User:Paul144, you may refer to the contents of the discussion in my talk page and in his. To summarise, as we are not reaching a consencus, I was wondering if you could help me find the exact verse in the Vedas that describes the fruit as 'the food of gods', if not some verses that prominantly mentions the fruit. I'd need to know the exact verse and the version of the Vedas you are referring for a valid citation. I was recommended by User:Abecedare (to whom I asked this earlier) to copy you in. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks and have a nice day.  S3000  ☎ 10:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the note. here you are inserting the claim, at the same time admitting it is unreferenced. Don't do that. What is your source for the claim? If it's an academic source, fair enough. If not, better leave it out. The "reference" you provided here is unacceptable. In short, you cannot introduce the claim until you find some decent reference to back it up. See also WP:RS. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is what the OED has got to say on the word:

"Portuguese manga (early 16th cent.) < a Dravidian word such as Kodagu maNge, Malayalam mANNa, or Tamil mANKAy "mango", perh. via Malay mangga (which may itself, however, be from the Portuguese). Portuguese manga (1540), French mangue (1604). The origin of the -o ending is not clear.

thus, it is true that the word is derived from the Dravidian. Nothing to do with the Vedas, however, and nothing about an alleged "food of the gods". Don't believe stuff you read on sites like buzzle.com. dab (𒁳) 10:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats because its pretty clear that Paul144 was confused between Vedas and Ayurveda. He changed the initial sentence from 'in the Hindu Vedas' to 'in the Hindu Ayurveda'. The statement about the mango being the 'fruit of gods' has been there for sometime, but there wasn't any citation to back it up. Paul144 claimed the citation I added wasn't good enough, and after a lengthy discussion, I thought it would be best to insert the exact verse from the Vedas (or whichever part or it). As I'm not familiar with the texts, I requested assistance from several Wikipedians (including you). We fully agree that the term comes either from Tamil, Malayalam or Kodagu. But this (mention of the fruit in the Vedas) has nothing to do with the origins of the term, but its prominant mention in one of Hinduism's holiest (and oldest) texts.  S3000  ☎ 10:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he was trying in good faith to save something from your claim. He shouldn't have. You see, if you can come up with "the exact verse from the Vedas" that would be fair enough, but I am telling you that there is no such verse. Once you find a citable reference proving me wrong, you are free to come back and insert it. I am not sure why you would insist on this "Vedas" tidbit if, as you admit yourself, you have no way of verifying that there is any substance to the claim. dab (𒁳) 11:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that Hiranyagarbha "golden fetus" mentioned in RV 10.121 may have been taken to refer to mango by some (crackpot) authors. If you are really into this, you can try if you can come up with any citation to this effect. dab (𒁳) 11:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also find bona fide mention of mango (āmra) in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.36:

yathāmraṃ vodumbaraṃ vā pippalaṃ vā bandhanāt pramucyate | evam evāyaṃ puruṣa ebhyo 'ṅgebhyaḥ saṃpramucya punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyony ādravati prāṇāyaiva

still nothing of "food of the gods". This is just a list of fruits (mango, fig, pippala) which are plucked from the stalk when ripe, just as the Self is plucked from the body (or something like that. viz.: a simile). The verse I have just cited is likely the oldest attestation of the word āmra "mango". dab (𒁳) 11:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda get it. Actually that statement (fruit of gods) was there prior to the time I started editing the page. When I saw it needed citation, I offered to try get one by googling 'mango fruit of gods', and a whole array of matching results appeared! Hence I thought there must be some factual accuracy to it and just inserted a citation from buzzle.com (one of the results I opened). Personally, I haven't heard of such a thing. The only story of a mango I've heard about is one where both Ganesha and Murugan compete for a Mango from Shiva and Parvathi (I'm sure you know it). Again I'm not sure if it is in the Vedas too. My knowledge on this subject is rather poor and I took what was written in that buzzle.com article to face value.

User:Abecedare also says the same thing, i.e. there's no such thing, but he'll do further research to clarify. I guess I'll wait a little more for a reply from User:Rudrasharman (whom I was advised to copy in by Abecedare). If all of you are saying the same thing, then I'll just remove the statement and write that 'the oldest attestation to the mango is found in the Vedas' or something like that.

May I also ask whether above and over all fruits, is the mango referenced to most, i.e. most prominant fruit mentioned in the text? Any truth to that?

Thanks for your kind assistance.  S3000  ☎ 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, no, the "oldest attestation of a mango" isn't found in the Vedas. A mango is mentioned in passing in an Upanishad. I'm not sure how notable this is to the mango article. As to "above and over all fruits", I don't know which text you are referring to. I am sure there are lots of stories involving mangoes in medieval Indian texts, but I haven't researched these. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, you and I have been working on parallel tracks (for which I get the credit/blame) and have reached the same conclusions. While it is very difficult to prove that mangoes are not mentioned in the Vedas, your input and my search efforts have convinced me personally that secondary (non-scholarly) sources which say otherwise are either just repeating hearsay or using the term loosely (counting Br.Up., the epics, or maybe even "all old Sanskrit texts" as Vedas). There is interesting material about mangoes in later epics, Jain, Buddhist and puranic texts, and I may make the effort to get it all together ... someday. Thanks, as usual, for your quick response. Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an excellent idea. Just contact me if you require any help in putting it together. All we need I presume is a simple section on its mention in Hindu texts, which can be expanded over time. Thanks  S3000  ☎ 17:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiiw, I am surprised that the mango fruit is mentioned as early as in the BAU. That's "almost Vedic" and may predate the epics by a couple of centuries. You can pretty much forget about references in the Vedas (Samhitas) proper: the geographical horizon of these does not extend south of the Vindhya, and I understand that the mango is not native to Northern India. dab (𒁳) 19:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the foregoing. I couldn't find āmra in the Bloomfield concordance, which pretty much covers as much of Vedic texts as could be considered relevant. Monier-Williams cites the Mbh (and Śakuntalā): signficantly, nothing earlier, nor any mention of "food of the gods" or suchlike. I also agree with Dab that the reference in BAU is remarkable (though, I think the ātmanepada form of pramucyate means "releases" -- i.e. falls off (after ripening) -- rather than "is plucked"). Generally, I treat all off-hand claims of "in the Vedas" with extreme suspicion, as nothing more that WP:PEACOCK; and I think it's a good rule of thumb to require reliable citations in order not to revert such "additions" on sight. rudra (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody for your inputs! I appreciate it.  S3000  ☎ 12:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you added a sentence about "Hellenes" possibly deriving from the IE root *sed- in Helen. Could you please provide us with a source so that it may be incorporated in the article Greeks? 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to find that this is less than universally accepted[GE[Gl][Gl][Ga][G/][Gc]&method_lemma=substring]. I'll try to find a reference. dab (𒁳) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to take a break from editing Kosovo for a while due to the tensions. In my absence, you seem to have helped forge a sensible consensus on how to improve the article, which I want to congratulate you on and thank you for. Best. Superm401 - Talk 04:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this, thank you. --dab (𒁳) 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in joining the debate here [21]? It's in my userspace at the moment but I might try and move it to Wikipedia talkspace (assuming it doesn't get shot down). It might not achieve anything but at least it allows a centralised discussion of the "meta-issues" (or just a good opportunity to rant and let off steam). --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you give your view here [22]

thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining this edit? I agree that this is completely unconstructive, but there doesn't seem to be any ill-air in the second comment, and I suspect refactoring in this debate is only going to inflame things. Happy‑melon 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you follow "Jawohl" around a bit, you will note that his approach is to sprinkle talkpages with innocuous tounge-in-cheek rhetorical questions for no reason other than WP:POINT. I've left him a note about it, but obviously, he'll not listen to me. In due time, he'll just take the path of all the other misfits: (a) reform, (b) get bored, or (c) get kicked out. --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just curious - thanks for elaborating. Happy‑melon 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I see you're rather anti-nationalistic, so I think you should take a look at the Egyptians article, it's ridiculous. Some previous discussion: [23] Funkynusayri (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann, I've got enough on my hands with the Arab nationalist trolls who are stalking me. Please don't give me a reason to start treating your edits like theirs. Thanks for the unicode fix. — Zerida ☥ 08:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the mud-slinging, but no, I'm not an "Arab-nationalist" just because I'm part Lebanese. The Egyptians article is filled with POV and wrong information, that's all. I've explained my objections many times earlier, but neutral editors never step in, only folks like Egyegy and Lanternix, so it doesn't get anywhere, and the complaints are frequently deleted. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no such reason. I made an accurate observation on talk: More than half of the Egyptians article is offtopic and a WP:CFORK that should be truncated now. I have waited with the truncating, but duly tagged the problem at the moment. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of WP:3RR and wait until you've secured consensus from other editors. — Zerida ☥ 08:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nope: I am not involved in this article at all: I have placed cleanup tags and observed its generally very poor status. Removing cleanup tags without explanation is disruptive editing and may be rolled back. I appreciate Tammoor‎ is a new account and has probably no idea what they are doing (WP:BITE), but if they persist, they'll just be blocked for disruption. dab (𒁳) 08:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're still fresh off your last arbitration case for similar issues. I highly suggest that you calm down and use the talk page to gain consensus. We both know that these are not "clean-up" tags. — Zerida ☥ 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am calm. I don't see the problem. An article is broken, I tagged it. I am not "fresh off" any arbitration case, and I am not aware that any arbitration case I have been involved with in the past has anything to do with this. You are clearly trying to avoid the issue by wikilawyering. Are you responsible for the current coatracking state of the article? Then you seriously need to consider cleanup. {{Duplication}} and {{offtopic}} are cleanup tags. The Egyptians article is talking about the History of Ancient Egypt. That's "coatracking" and needs to be fixed. dab (𒁳) 09:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is "broken"? You honestly think that's a good argument? The article has been in a stable condition for close to two years, and the history section has been there before History of Ancient Egypt was a ever a decent article. I simply cannot take arguments like these seriously because they meet all the definitions of WP:POINT. It's one thing to make general suggestions for improving an article on its talk page, and another entirely to edit war over silly tags, break 3RR doing it, suggest that the article is "broken", but then want to take it apart. Please be aware that if you break 3RR again, I am going to have to report it. — Zerida ☥ 09:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, perhaps you could first address the question, what do you suppose is the scope of this article? It's unclear. Ancient Egypt? Or Egypt? I am sorry, but listing Coptic and Ancient Egyptian as "languages spoken by Egyptians" is like (no, worse than) listing Proto-Germanic and Old High German as languages of the Germans. That's not just a little strange, it's hilarious nonsense. If the article has been "stable" in the past, that's apparently just because nobody bothered to look at it. Now can you please be constructive in an attempt to fix this instead of trying to wikilawyer about it? I understand that Egyptians is the article about the modern Egyptian nationality. If you are trying to write an article about the Ancient Egyptians, please move it to another title, and remove the infobox suggesting it is about the modern group. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Category:Setians and Category:Setians (a subcategory)- one of these is redundant but I don't know what to do with it. Category:Setians is empty now apart from one article and Category:Setians. One of these needs to be deleted, or the other one renamed- if I could remove "setians" from "setianism" then "setianism" would be an empty ish page and should be deleted. Or Category:Setians should be simply renamed to Category:Setians But I don't know how to do any of it, or even what to do. All help would be appreciated:) I would list somewhere at CfD but I don't know what to do with this in general. special, random, Merkinsmum 21:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to use this picture "Image:Bodleian J2 fol 175 Y 28 1.jpg" for my article on the Avesta in the Hungarian Wikipedia, but I don't see it in Commons. Could you help me how I could insert it into my article, if it's at all possible. Many thanks. I tried to copy it into Commons, but I think I haven't succeeded. As I dont have an account here, I give you my email addres: jozefabarreto@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.28.2 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have successfully uploaded it to commons: commons:Image:Bodleian J2 fol 175 Y 28 1.jpg. dab (𒁳) 07:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dab, I am wondering if you might like to weigh in on an RfC that I initiated earlier this week. I fear that the discussion there has degenerated. I'm aware that you might not know anything specific about the language concerned (which I don't either), but the content issue is more general, and you know a lot about ancient India. I've tried to explain this more precisely in my statement (at the expense of using too many words which I hope you don't find too off-putting). Needless to say, if you do decide to say something, I don't expect you to say anything in support of my position, only to provide you best opinion. Request for comment: When does the literary tradition in a language begin? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, Since you both read German and, as the creator of the Khilani article, are familiar with Scheftelowitz's work - can you please check if I have summarized his thoughts on Sri sukta correctly in the "Source and versions" section. Note that there is no dispute regarding the page/content, nor any real hurry for you to weigh in. Just take a look at your leisure/pleasure. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is the relevant text by Scheftelowitz online somewhere, or will I have to search for a printed copy? It isn't exactly sitting on my shelf :) and TITUS only gives the naked Sanskrit. dab (𒁳) 08:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I based the content of that section on Coburn's book, but cited Scheftelowitz so that one can, in theory, go straight to the wellspring. I don't think those two German titles are available online. Is there anything on the topic in this Scheftelowitz book ? (Seems unlikely given Judaism in the title, but what the heck :) ) Abecedare (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want to talk about keeping nationalism out of Wiki, I would like for you to take a look at this Template:AL_LargestCities and tell me if its a good thing for the Encyclopedia. Chaldean (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes? "50 Largest Cities of the Arab League by population"? anything wrong with that? dab (𒁳) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab League is not like the European Union where they are borderless or share common laws. To the average person, non-Arab cities like Kirkuk and Arbil are being mistanly labeled Arab. Chaldean (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkuk is in Iraq, and Iraq is a member of the Arab league. Hence, regardless of the number of ethnic Arabs in Kirkuk, the city is within the Arab League. I have no opinion on the usefulness of such a list, but it is obvioulsly perfectly objective. dab (𒁳) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't know if the Kurdistan Regional Government area is considered part of the Arab league or not, and thus it might cause confusion (see the map in the Arab world page.) Chaldean (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as long as Iraq remains a sovereign state with its current borders, Iraqi Kurdistan a fortiori is part of the Arab League. The Arab League isn't equivalent to the "Arab world". dab (𒁳) 14:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I hope I'm not stepping on a hornets nest here, but I have nominated Proto-Ionians for deletion (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Ionians), I don't see why these theories are notable - and it seems like a lot of OR in the article. Sorry for the template, twinkle doesn't allow a real note to be written and I was being too lazy to fiddle around with AfD manually. henrik•talk 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I wouldn't use AfD in such a case, since the result will either be keep or merge anyway, I'd just slap the article with {{notability}} and {{merge}} tags, but it's up to you. dab (𒁳) 17:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Armna tag on Hayasa-Azzi. I don't think this people are Armenians. They are too distant in history. Don't know if you agree. Artene50 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whats going on but the move war is unpleasant. Can we please end the move war. I do not care one bit what the page is named. -- Cat ^chi? 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

yep. for this, we need to clamp down on the editors who do care what the article is named, and act childishly about it. VegardNorman (talk · contribs) has a longish disciplinary block coming his way, in my book. In the "Syriac/Assyrian" case, the task is not so much writing an encyclopedic article based on poor sources, but managing a bunch of misfit teenagers on testosterone while doing it. I think we need to remember the block button was really intended for cases such as this. dab (𒁳) 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the situation is as bad as it looks. It only got out of hand when User Vegard pushed it when creating History of the Syriac people page (please redirect this page back appropriately.) Whats next, mirror pages of Syriac culture to Assyrian culture, etc etc. We don't need mirror pages like these. I think we should have a page for Syriac Orthodox people like the way we have Chaldean Christians, where it breifly desribes the people, and not create culture section, music section, etc since these will be basically mirror information from the Assyrian people page. The Chaldean Christian page seems to be well enough in that I have seen it being use by 3rd party media as a source (I have seem direct sentences taken out of that article. The history section of the Chaldean Chrsitian page however is not needed. The scope of these articles should be a small summary of the people (Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Orthodox) as a group of its self. Not create outragious nationalistic pages like West Syriacs and claim they are separate from the rest of the Assyrians in that they are descendents of ancient Arameans. Umm, all Assyrians are descented of the Arameans, along with Akkadaians and the ruling Assyrians. Chaldean (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need [users like these] in Wikipedia? Is this what Wikipedia has come down to? Flag waving? Look at his edits, all he does is go around and label pages with "category:Syriacs". Chaldean (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ask yourselves, who was the victim in the "Assyrian genocide"? Syriac Christians, both Eastern and Western Syriac. It is pathetic and small-minded to engage in a pissing contest and childish flag-waving. We need an article on the entire group (4 million people or so), regardless of their nationalisms and their petty disputes. This article is at Assyrian people. It is disrespectful of the victims I mentioned to as it were fight over their dead bones to categorize them as "Syriac" vs. "Assyrian", so stop it. The categories Category:Syriacs and Category:Assyrian people belong merged. If you really cannot agree on a single name, let it be called Category:Syriacs/Assyrians, anything is better than this public humiliation of yourselves as small-minded jerks when you should be trying to document your own group with respect and circumspection. If you don't have the stature to do that, stand down and go back to the teenage chauvinist blogs you came from. dab (𒁳) 07:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ask yourselves, who was the victim in the "Assyrian genocide"? Syriac Christians, both Eastern and Western Syriac. - No, wrong. In 1915, no population in the Middle East called themselves "Syraic Christians", so how can "Syriac Christians" die when they didn't even exist? The word SYRIAC wasn't created in the English language to describe a group of people not until 1952, that is 30 some years after the genocide, so how can you explain this? See, I am all about accuracy - you can't just try to negotiate with history, just so that "it doesn't offend people." History is what it is. You can't go back and change it, rather you can only explain it. And that was my argument of the specific issue you brought up.

need an article on the entire group (4 million people or so) - BTW, this number is very unaccurate. That is what nationalist claim, but the number is well below 3 million, maybe even 2.

Category:Syriacs and Category:Assyrian people belong merged. If you really cannot agree on a single name, let it be called Category:Syriacs/Assyrians, - issues like these and others, like title names of History of the Assyrian people instead of History of the Syriac people neede to be dealt with once in for all, your right. Let us declare in the naming convention what is the defacto name used in all of the situation. I am more then confident its Assyrian, and I will be more hten gladly to go through the do-process. Chaldean (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very tiresome Chaldean. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." The TriZ (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some large claims are being made here:"The Mundhum pre-dates Vedic civilisation in South Asia...". Could you take a look? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims reduced - so panic over I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request an explanation as to why you merged the article, and also why you didn't discuss it before doing so. The case for a separate article is that Mundhum is a text that goes beyond religion to society and culture - it applies to the Kirant religion as well as the Kirant article and the Kiranti languages (as Mundhum is the central literature of the languages). I compare it to the Vedas and Vedic religion being separate articles - at some point or another, you have to have a fork. And in case you are concerned that the content is similar (which I admit it mostly is), I would say that more sources and some additional content had been provided, so it wasn't a copy-and-paste job. Thanks, Vishnava (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on that. I merged the articles on purely technical grounds: their content was overlapping to more than 50%, and they were both very short. Please try to expand the current single article, and feel free to branch out separate sub-articles within WP:SS once the current article grows overly detailed. --dab (𒁳) 14:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize - I did not know about this instruction. Thanks for correcting it, although I wish you would have informed me when you decided to do so. Vishnava (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in turn. I usually do the straighforward WP:BOLDly and deal with objections as they come in (reverts are cheap, and if 80% of my edits are uncontroversial, I save a lot of time by not announcing all of them in advance). It is early enough to begin debating after a dispute erupts, but it is of course important to respect objections once it does. --dab (𒁳) 14:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I called User:999 and User:Hanuman Das sockmasters, looking into it I was wrong, they were both socks of the same user. But are you claiming to be one of these two chaps? KV(Talk) 11:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no. You seem to be saying, then, that you didn't call me a sockmaster. Glad to hear it. You still called me a "wikibully". How about you stop the political noise now and come to Talk:Hermetism and calmly present whatever it is you want to present. I would be obliged, however, if you could leave out Atlantis and the Sphinx from the beginning. dab (𒁳) 11:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strange. Why does the current Kura-Araxes culture page mention Azeris and Armenians? see this edit: [24] I thought none of these people lived here as early as 3000 to 2000 BC? Might be a POV. Perhaps, an Admin should remove any propaganda and protect the page. 24.87.136.31 (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's at it again... rudra (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AA showed up again: [25] I reverted the edit but I think he'll be back soon as usual. Wonder what other article's may need protection. 24.87.136.31 (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your accusations regarding my recent edits, I would like to say that being disruptive was not in my intentions. I was simply rewording a phrase so that it would comply to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Not everyone thinks alike, so Wikipedia should reflect that through its neutral stance on controversial subjects. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Editor2020 has been insisting that the term is exclusively Christian, even though many sources prove that its a broader theological term and the article Salvation(which this editor has tried to continue a POV push on) actually talks about soteriology in other religions. I would take this to a WP:Mediation, but to be honest this issue is so moronic and unnecessary that it would be a waste of time. I think someone with some measure of authority on wikipedia just needs to quickly put an end to this, as the person in question has been pretty unreasonable. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dinesh deserves an unconditional apology from you because of the comments you made on him here. In light of new discussions that have happened in the same talk page, it is your old-time friend F and F who was wrongly accusing Dinesh and it seems like you were biased towards your friend's views and without any foresight, just asked Dinesh to get his act together and stand down. Any person who needed to be admonished there was F and F and not Dinesh. The least you can do now is to tender an unconditional apology. And please don't take sides in future when you want to use your stick as an admin, that doesn't bode well. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

any diffs? I'll look into it. F&f is not "my friend". I am on his side when he is right, and I'm not when he isn't. In my experience, he has good background knowledge and knows how to research stuff, so that he is to be taken seriously as an editor, but that's an assessment of the quality of his edits, which doesn't translate to an emotional attachment as you seem to imply. --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well your admonishing of Dinesh on that talk page is a clear enough indication that you seemed to have a biased opinion about F and F vis-a-vis Dinesh. Dinesh is no ordinary editor out here, he has single-handedly written numerous FAs, each of which have been rigorously scrutinised before being promoted to an FA. That itself is a sufficient indication of the scholarly and research abilities of Dinesh. When F and F accused him of "cheating", you ended up siding with him and admonished Dinesh, without even trying to understand what Dinesh had to say in that matter. Have a look at the talk page, where F and F has ended up apologising for his accusations on Dinesh, and had to retire out of that page, to save his face. That should put things in perspective. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your faith in the FA process is touching. rudra (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your snide remark aside, if you do not have faith in Wikipedia processes, you are wasting your time here, your talents could be better utilised elsewhere -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into it. I appreciate Dineshkannambadi is an editor in good standing, but there it ends. His insistence on the 450 date was not constructive. F&f's involvement was a over the top as well. It would all have been as simple as agreeing on "450 to 600" and move on. Your emphasis on the FA process isn't helpful either. This is about getting the details right, not about passing some Wikipedia formatting contest, it really does't matter if this becomes a "FA" in two weeks or in two years (there are many many excellent articles on Wikipedia that will never become Features simply because their authors don't care about the FA process). I do not see any reason for admin intervention now. But I do repeat that the attempt to portray "Kannada literature" to originate as early as at all defensible (even prehistorically...) is the typical attitude of antiquity frenzy. Sheesh, classical Kannada literature begins in the 9th centry. There are some scattered inscriptions before that, sure, but that's of very marginal interest to the topic of the article. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now you are saying that both Dinesh and F and F were overboard. But you chose to selectively admonish Dinesh in that talk page... Sheesh.. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh insists on 450 for the simple reason that an overwhelming majority of scholars (look on jstor, gscholar, gbooks) insist on 450. If anybody has a problem with scholarly consensus, wikipedia is simply not the place for them. And, with regard to Kannada literature and inscriptions etc., arent we lucky that there have actually been real experts who have given us their take about it ? How difficult is it to paraphrase their statements and move on? sheesh. Sarvagnya 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THEN LET HIM insist on it at Halmidi inscription, not at Kannada literature or list of Pokemon characters. Have you even LOOKED at Halmidi inscription? Where perfectly academic sources establish that the inscription may be dated to either the 5th or the 6th century? WHAT is there to debate? The thing has been dated BY EXPERTS to between 450 and 600. That's it. It really doesn't matter how often "450" comes up in a google search, we have excellent references for the full span. The Kannada literature article which SHOULD NOT FOCUS on this detail should just state "5th or 6th century", end of story. I really don't see just WHAT is disputed about this at this point. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. WHAT? Dinesh insisted what? where? have you LOOKED at the Revision history of the page in question or its talk page? Can you show me a diff where Dinesh says that he's averse to having the "gory" details move to Halmidi inscription? Can you show me a diff where he says that he's against the footnote you/moreschi added yesterday? Can you show me a diff where he's said he's averse to a pipelink to the relevant section on the Halmidi inscription page? (For heavens' sake, the pipelink was MY suggestion!) "What is there to debate?" ask fowler!! The debate started with this edit of Fowler and his revert warring to keep it, not something Dinesh did! If it were upto Dinesh or me, there wouldnt be a nonsensical debate.. not on Kannada literature!! Next time do your homework before you come twirling your baton because an admin who got his facts wrong never impressed anyone. Sarvagnya 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aha... so why does the article still say "450" instead of the non-committal "5th or 6th c."? The latter doesn't say "450" is wrong, it just isn't committed. And it shouldn't be. I see nothing wrong with f&f's edit, it's a clear improvement by being less specific about things that are (a) uncertain and (b) offtopic. dab (𒁳) 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah.. now it suddenly becomes "relevant" to Kannada literature? As for the non-commital "5th century" you talk about, it may surprise you, but Dinesh had even suggested/agreed to that, but was rejected by the 'opposition'! And the article says ca. 450 with a footnote and a pipelink to the details. That is about as reasonable as it can get and again, though it may surprise you, neither Dinesh nor I ever had any problems with that. If there was anybody raising a ruckus, it was the one you conveniently failed to 'warn'. Sarvagnya 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By following some trail, I happen to arrive here. Dbachmann, thanks for your incisive comments on Kannada Literature talk page! Saying "5th or 6th century" is far better than a rigid 450 CE especially when the scholarly opinions surely vary between 450-600 CE. It is a pity that some people can't see, even simple things like this, and endlessly argue! --Aadal (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after a proposal to enable email notification, Wikisource is now able to notify you of any changes to pages on your watchlist and/or changes to your talk page. In order to take advantage of these features, you need to enabled them in your preferences. --

moved to Wikipedia talk:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board. My talkpage isn't a Syriac/Assyrian chatroom. dab (𒁳) 09:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at this? Your input would be appreciated, I neither have the time nor the energy to engage this user alone, so wider community input is needed.--07fan (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha so that's how you call others, very smart I say, any way my edits are flawless, I did it right with adding sources, but calling people just for backing you up and you know that you are wrong is something shameful.

any way DB You said "stop edit warring over the lead" which makes me thinking did I violate any rule? did I violate the 3rr? the answer is no, 2ndly obviously you are the one who violated the rules by removing sources, you can put this under "history" or "geography"? why you didn't put it then? aren't you are the one who removed it? unless you don't want to put it in the first place? any way this info is part of defining Iraq in general, so it's should be at first. Mussav (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mussav, read the link I posted to your talkpage. You didn't violate the 3RR, or you would be blocked now. You are still acting disruptively. Iraq wasn't "formerly known as Mesopotamia", don't be silly. It includes the region of Mesopotamia. dab (𒁳) 09:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give anything from my imagination, nothing silly about it, they are teaching this info in the US, and you can easily click on the source. Peace. Mussav (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not into teaching Wikipedia basics today. You were reverted, so now use the talkpage to seek consensus. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the source without consensus? Mussav (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

go away Mussav. You want to discuss this, use the article talkpage. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Not sure what to do. Advice? Thanks. rudra (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this user seems to have some expertise, and his coping with wiki procedure and -syntax shows that he is far more intelligent than our average troublemaker. We'll just have to get him to grok basic policy, and hopefully he'll write some great articles on the ISKCON movement without disrupting our wider coverage of Hinduism too much. dab (𒁳) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to consider that there is some sort of sectarian anti-ISKCON conspiracy and is a basic breach of WP:FAITH. Please explain to me how you assume good faith in this instance of clear pre-justice. Why do consider that ISKCON affiliated academics have no say in articles on Vedas? Please also see: Krishnology Wikidās ॐ 15:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidas, you are guilty of WP:SPAM, touting a book without any notability or academic credibility whatsoever. There is no conspiracy. Edit honestly and you'll be fine. Continue your disingenious pov-pushing, and you'll find you'll have no effect on article content. dab (𒁳) 15:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you are the judge. Okay then... Wikidās ॐ 15:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

glad to be of service. dab (𒁳) 15:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab and Rudra...I love you dudes! Man, I have been at it with this ISKCON dude for a while! He makes the most out-landish ISKCON ideas and he is aggresive about it. I am glad that others are starting to see his fanaticism and anti-Shruti beliefs.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his beliefs are not of any concern to me. I'm bothered by his reliance on dubious, if not downright lousy, sources. Also, clearly he needs to read more, and more widely. Yes, his editing is POV-driven, but that too can be channeled constructively within WP policy: by that I mean, no one is asking him to abandon his POV, he merely needs to abide by policy while he's editing on WP. rudra (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the main reasoning behind your recent edits and am happy with the changes to the lede; however to me the current Vedas#Categories_of_Vedic_texts is more difficult to read than the the earlier version, because there is now some increased redundancy, slight contradiction (between the two meanings of Vedas and earlier mentioned multiple uses), and some terms in the section (sruti, smriti, samhitas, etc) are now used before they are defined. Incidentally, I have no objection to mentioning the Gaudiya use of the term vedas, but I think it belongs (as an example) in the usage section. Your thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a mite more clumsy than before. It is also more informative. I suggest we try to optimise article structure without losing any information, you are most welcome to participate. dab (𒁳) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at it later today after giving it (i.e., the organization) some more thought. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised you hadn't created this article yet: A Vedic word concordance. Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to :) dab (𒁳) 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to stop some editors from removing citations and messing up FA articles, say like locking up the page? I hate to see any page locked up, but at times it seems needed. Please see Tamil language and Chola dynasty, two of the FAs being messed up by a group of editors. --Aadal (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Image source}} Kelly ^hi! 06:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Argenteus_Cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Kelly ^hi! 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look, it is not my fault {{PD}} is now deprecated. Are you going to spam me with silly warning message for perfectly obvious PD images just because I uploaded them three years ago, when using {{PD}} was still considered the thing to do?? dab (𒁳) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes, indeed, they are. Do you have any idea where I can go to change this pervasive nonsense all over WP that something that is obviously in the public domain needs a specific tag, as well as a URL where its from? Or why a famous historical photograph, with a carefully written fair use criterion and an original owner specified, is incomplete and tag-worthy until a silly ephemeral website address is added? It is slowly infuriating me. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Wikipedia hivemind has the mental springiness of the geological brain of A'Tuin. That has its advantages, but it can be tedious. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions what to do with Chronology of Human Prehistory -- the editor -- new but I've seen him on an LDS page as well -- clearly doesn't know what he is doing. He just used a 1979 publication to show something the oldest human habitation, and most of his references are rubbish (he is getting some from other Wikipedia articles I think). I think the article is never going to work anyway. Is there any place I can bring this up? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um, yeah, probably best to merge into prehistory. dab (𒁳) 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Kosovo&curid=16636332&diff=207475595&oldid=207090856

I don't want to get in an edit war. Will you assist me in having this corrected, and staying correct? Beam 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it anyway. User_talk:Husond#RoK_Redirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the ancient and long disappeared 12th century BC Hayasa-Azzi listed under the Armenian people? I notice in its edit history 2 sock puppets of Arev, Testerams and Ara Ur, have recently been here. The last time you protected it here [26] in October 2007, the language was more neutral. Artene50 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why are you asking me if you know about Ararat arev? Just revert to the good version. dab (𒁳) 07:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I know little specifically on the small kingdom of HA except that its citizens certainly weren't Armenian so early in the 12th century BC. There may have been one or two reliable additions since October 2007 that you as an expert would realise, unlike myself. Artene50 (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not alone: nobody knows any specifics about this kingdom. It's prehistorical. It's a topic of Prehistoric Armenia, not more and not less. dab (𒁳) 10:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consulted Trevor Bryce's great book on the Hittites and greatly increased the amount of sourced details on Hayasa-Azzi. Whather the article will remain this way, I can't say. On Urartu, I notice its article suffers from an abscence of reliable info. for its final period. Its not even certain if Rusa III, Urartu's penultimate king, died in 601 BC or 609 BC? see here: [27] or [28] The final destruction of Uratu is not clearly recorded: it ranges from 590 or 585 BC. I have zero reliable sources on Urartu. Anyhow, is it true that Urartu translates as Ararat? There seems to be a phonetic connection. Thank you, Artene50 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you must understand that these things are uncertain and need to be reported according to their plausibility as estimated by experts in the relevant fields. dab (𒁳) 08:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dab, Can you pls. protect the Hyksos and The origins of the Hyksos articles from AA's socket attacks ASAP? He reverted Doug Weller's and my reversion of his edits on the latter topic twice and just personally attacked me 8 or 9 times on my talk page accusing me of being a Jew, Turk or 'something similar.'--whatever that means. I will removed this nonsense from my talk page tomorrow but here is a record of it: [29] Anyway, its certainly AA!

On the Hayasa-Azzi article, it now has some POV. I don't know if the sources quoted by Mikkalai are reliable but I added a qualification to be fair. I don't know if Kurkjian is a reliable source but I won't quibble here. I can see how Hayasa-Azzi can be transformed as Hayasa or Haisi in later times but this would be a regional designation. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what: AA has just engaged in a revert war here too on Hayasa-Azzi by asking Mikalai to delete my sensible edit: [30] Who is "we" here? Sounds like an attempt to push a POV. Of course he uses another anonymous IP as usual! AA must be a nasty personality sadly to engage in such personal attacks. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your efforts in the early periods of the History of Anatolia article... I took a break, and now I'm renewed to try and get the post-Nicaean period completed one step at a time. My section titles were a bit rough, but then again I've always went for more detail than less. Any more help will be appreciated! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... I just stumbled on your comment proposing a merger of India (disambiguation), India (word), Greater India, Indosphere, Indian subcontinent and South Asia. I found it pretty similar to my comment proposing a merger of Indianized kingdom, Greater India, Undivided India, Indian subcontinent and Indies. Please, drop in and advise. The discussion is getting nowhere, apart from Bhadani (who I admire greatly) voicing opinion on minor issues. I have this feeling that using the bold, revert, discuss cycle may be the only way to get this rolling. Say what? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor of the article Nationalism, please note that the section Religious Nationalism has now been separated from the main article into its own article Religious nationalism. Please join in and help bring this newly formed article up to standard. Especially important is avoiding a Systemic Bias and adding Citations.

All the best, Witty Lama 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a revert war on Hayasa-Azzi and on Urartu prompted partly by AA. Some want to attach the armenian tag to both articles when maybe only Urattu belongs to the pre-historic Armenia. No neutral historian would state that Hayassa-Azzi was really Armenian. I mentioned this on the article's talk page. I will monitor my talk pages for any more attacks on my characer or race. I care only about the historical facts--of where there are little known for Hayassi-Azzi sadly. Artene50 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep there is a full scale revert war on Hayasa-Azzi--which makes no sense IMO--and Urartu. At least with Urartu, I can possibly see some of its ancestors being forbears of the Orontid Armenian kingdom but definitely not Hayassa-Azzi. That is pure POV. Artene50 (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and Artene50 happily takes part in it. `'Míkka>t 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already pointed to both sides of this war, the proper way to resolve the dispute is to seek a consensus in a single talk page, not by shopping opinions of various admins. Since they both refuse to do so after several warnings from my side, I have nothing more to say and I am no longer involved in their quarrel, since I don't have peacemaker's skills. `'Míkka>t 23:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add Nairi to the mix. The "Prehistoric Armenia" section in that Armenian infobox will have to be terminated with extreme prejudice, I think. rudra (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is a fallacy to assume that if an article is linked from an infobox, that article also "must" transclude the infobox. "A is relevant to B" is not equivalent to "B is relevant to A". --dab (𒁳) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The risk of 'template clutter' in the History of Armenia tag here [31] is very real. Just recently a user tried to forcefully insert the c.3400 to 2000 BC Kura-Araxes culture into this template [32] when there is no evidence for a clear connection to Armenia except for geography. Nothing also connects Hayasa-Azzi to Prehistoric Armenia except that this kingdom once covered parts of Eastern Anatolia and Armenia in the 13th and 12th century BC. I do concur that Urartu should be placed in 'pre-historic Armenia' however. It is very close to the Orontid kingdom in time. If I read an article on Hayasa-Azzi or Kura Araxes, I don't want a tag or template staring at me right from the beginning of an article if there is no proven link with Armenia. Mikalai's suggestion of 'Armenian related topics' which focuses on the archaeological history of Armenia is very welcome and appropriate: [33] That is where Hayassi-Azzi and Kura-Araxes should be placed. Artene50 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dbachmann; in response to your query,[34] some progress has been made. However, recent efforts to edit the article to reflect the sense of the discussions on the talk page are being obstructed, largely by Zero g (talk · contribs), who has been uncivil (see especially the second edit in the diff),[35] and may be ignoring or misapplying Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I wonder if you'd be kind enough to have a look? An outside opinion would be helpful. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know what I'm thanking you for. :-)Doug Weller (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've recently put the article Tibet during the Ming Dynasty up for Featured Article status. Someone on the FA candidates page for it recently commented on an image you originally downloaded, Image:Drepung monastery.jpg, saying this:

does not have a source. Author is asserted as "Philipp Roelli", but uploader is "Dbachmann" and a "self" license variant is not used. How can we confirm Roelli has indeed licensed this as GFDL?

Could you please verify that "Philipp Roelli" is the author as said on the image page? Thank you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is bullshit. How would you verify that it was in fact me who used the camera and not my friend or his aunt if I had used the "self" licence? This is pointless red tape. Some people need to WP:UCS badly here. dab (𒁳) 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbachmann,
I want to move the article History of the Indian Subcontinent to History of India (basically, to restore it to status quo), but I am unable to do so because the History of India redirect page has an edit history. I have outlined the reasons for the move on the talk page of this article. Can you kindly help me in this regard? Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, dab! - Max ^{- You were saying?} 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're too fast for me, when I make an edit to an article which says "see talk page" in the edit summary, I then generally leave my comment on the talk page afterwards. You managed to catch it during the several minute lag between the two. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are on going edits wars on Nairi see here [36] and the History of Armenia template: [37]--specifically its pre-history section. Don't know if you can remedy it. I thought Hayasa-Azzi was not part of pre-historic Armenia but since its territory covers part of the Armenian highlands, I changed my mind. I can't concur on Kura-Araxes personally. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know quite a bit about things Germanic, so I thought I'd consult you on a matter of fringe crankery. This section [38] in the Beowulf article refers to a loony theory by M.J.Harper, author of The History of Britain Revealed (AKA The Secret History of the English Language), which contends - among other things - that English was the ancestor of the Romance languages and that Latin was never spoken but was a form of shorthand used by Italian merchants (!) (further details here [39]). Obviously, I'd remove this myself but the Harper stuff is mixed in with what looks like bona fide scholarship from Kevin Kiernan's Beowulf and the Beowulf Manuscript and I thought you would be better at surgically separating the mad fantasy from anything worth saving. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hah, interesting, I've never heard of that one. As publishing costs plummet, the far ends of the bell curve of human stupidity are rapidly being filled in with ISBNed publications :) --dab (𒁳) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lord, Harper. I've had many fruitless (fruitloop?) exchanges with him. He doesn't like evolution either. I can't tell if he is a troll or not, but he is without doubt an unreliable source (and doesn't care much about details, references, either -- his claim, not just my observation if I recall correctly). I have his book, he actually sent me a copy.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The crank stuff was re-added but I've deleted it. Worth keeping an eye on. --Folantin (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Husond's personal crusade against me has led to my topic banishment. It stems from the redirect issue, which you were involved in. I'm just letting you know to be careful, he may manipulate the situation to try to have you banned as well. Probably not, but you never know. Anyway, try to keep the Kosovo article neutral. Beam 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a clear admin misjudgement, it appears. But what you should learn from this is that your rather hysterical comments make you vulnerable, while Husond's condescending sarcasm and passive disruption makes for a less juicy diff collection when presented out of context. I've asked Rudget to reconsider or post it to WP:AN/I. If you get some decent admin to spend ten minutes reviewing the Talk:Kosovo history, they'll be sure to grok what is going on here. Meanwhile, take it as a chance to take a break and be refreshed editing some less controversial topic. --dab (𒁳) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand both your concerns, hence I have posted an ANI thread regarding for the subject. Sincerely, Rudget (Help?) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! --dab (𒁳) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interruption but I would like to ask you to revert or change some edits(I cant change the edits beacuse the page is protected) made in Kosovo article by someone, and this person removed the history about Dardanoi an Thraco-Illyrian tribe in Kosovo befor or in ancient time known as Dardania. best regards and thank you -- BallkanHistory 9:22 PM, 7 May 2008 {UTC} —Preceding comment was added at 19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should post to Talk:Kosovo. The problem is that the "Kingdom of Dardania" is practically prehistoric and nothing is known about it except for the names of a handful of kings or tribal chiefs. --dab (𒁳) 05:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dbachmann. See the Rydberg thread at COIN where I suggest that block warnings be given to Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs). Since the Rydberg page is still under your semi-protection you may have an interest. I am possibly a 'neutral admin' and I might be able to block since I have not yet edited the Rydberg article, though I've participated in the COIN discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's your call. Jack the Giant-Killer's behaviour is slightly problematic, but I didn't see any terrible personal attacks. It's an editing dispute first and foremost. --dab (𒁳) 05:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Tractatus de superstitionibus, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tractatus de superstitionibus. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't even an article, it's a disambiguation page. Please familiarise yourself with WP:DAB. --dab (𒁳) 05:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dab. How about replacing 'superticionibus' with 'superstitionibus' in the Nicholas Magni article? Google believes that the latter spelling is more likely for this author (4x more hits). I tried to read how it was spelled in the facsimile, but it's hard to make it out one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! If you remember, I sent the same message as I initially sent you to BalanceRestored some time ago, but he's only recently replied. His message is in my talk page. Please have your say. Thanks!  S3000  ☎ 11:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dab, What kind of Anti-Vandal system does Wikipedia use? This vandalism on Menkaura who was one of the most important Old Kingdom pharaohs went undetected for 6 FULL DAYS until I just reverted it: [40] When the bolded title of a page is changed, Clue Bot should investigate it. Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:BalkanFever#Economy_of_Kosovo

Please read and comment. I have 1 or 2 more days to go on my shortened ban, so I figure when I come back I'd like to *BAM* put up a sweet section. Beam 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you know this website. Its owner added it to 4 articles today (despite being warned in the past) and I've removed it from those and other articles.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your revert and looked at it. I made a note of collecting this sort of stuff. I am somewhat alerted to "racial memory" ideas emerging in Western Europe in sanitized vocabulary, since Rokus01 and the PCT. Althogh this one here seems to be harmless crackpottery. dab (𒁳) 16:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of this site - he is (or was last year) a Belgian student, he mentions a dissertation for his History of Art teacher. He's not even a Mick Harper, if that name (which I don't think was his real name) means anything to you.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Harper, see #Beowulf_crankery right above :) dab (𒁳) 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not doing any good to Albanian related articles and Mareklug is absolutely right. Please leave all Albanian related articles and care about Serbian/Russian related articles, if you want to. Honestly, you created a hell of a mess and are avoiding any improvement. I hope you will leave before you get a topic ban. Thank you, Mister. --Tubesship (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you, Sir, are an Albanian ethnic nationalist. What you consider "improvement" is blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Please find some activity on Wikipedia where you are not hampered by WP:COI, or else feel free to keep a nationalist blog off-wiki instead. --dab (𒁳) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are more a racist than I ever could be a nationalist. Please leave ethnically related topics or they will ban you. --Tubesship (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)PS: There was an apartheid regime in Kosova and now Kosova is free, get over it, please.[reply]

careful with the personal attacks there, son. I would ask you to keep off my talk page now, and ideally keep away from the Kosovo article. If you insist on trolling, any administrator can ban you without further warning, per the arbcom probation clause on Kosovo. dab (𒁳) 05:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dab. I don't have any immediate plans regarding this, but I was curious where you think one would best add descriptions of Cowgill's Law and Osthoff's Law? Do you think they deserve their own articles? Should they be grouped under something like "Post-Proto-Indo-European Dialectical Laws" or rather squeezed in somewhere, like Laryngeal theory, where appropriate? I just added a few notes on Germanic Parent Language (still listed as a merge pending future work on Proto-Germanic), and regretted not being able to link to these theories. Any ideas? Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have Indo-European sound laws. Obviously all "Indo-European sound laws" are post PIE, otherwise they'd be Pre-Indo-European. But of course it would be possible to compile standalone articles on each law. Pending that, the titles can be redirects. --dab (𒁳) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about Indo-European sound laws - seems like a good place for the present. To note: By post-PIE I specifically meant rules that were added to the grammars of IE dialects, distinguishing them from rules (e.g. synchronic, morphosyntactical) assumed to be present in PIE proper. But, you're right, the distinction is superfluous in the face of Indo-European sound laws. Thanks for the response. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your contribution to the "energy (spirituality)" page. As you will see in the notes, that page was undergoing reconstruction at the time that you and a few others felt the call to descend upon it. Even so, some of your edits may appear discourteous, POV and unnecessarily destructive. Rather than revert those edits, I should appreciate it if you would attend to the rationale behind the page as it stood before you hbegan work, and co-operate with me on a task with which I was already engaged, as I noted on the page, with a view to achieving a consensus on content and tone. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no "rationale" was apparent. If you can turn it into an article with a scope and a rationale, I'd be happy to endorse your edits. Your first step would seem to be, establish what the article is even supposed to be about. dab (𒁳) 10:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you an Admin? I assume by the judgement displayed in your support of edit-warring on Great Britain and Ireland you aren't - but it is best to check these things out). Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"my support of edit warring"? I am not sure what you are trying to say. It seems you are trying to put so much judgemental spin into your brief comment that it is near impossible to recover its original referent. I'll by happy to explain my edits, and I can assure you I wouldn't dream of "supporting edit-warring". dab (𒁳) 10:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. In the spirit of assuming good faith, I will, of course, not assume you were being at all condescending. In the future though, perhaps the following Wikipedia entries may assist you in phrasing your comments in a more constructive way. They are: Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Wikilove.

From Dictionary.com - a 'word' is a "a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning." A phrase is " a sequence of two or more words arranged in a grammatical construction and acting as a unit in a sentence."

Regarding proper names, virtually all names in Sanskrit have meanings (reference: "Pick A Pretty Indian Name for your Baby", by Meenal Pandya, a very good friend of mine.) Therefore, it is completely acceptable to include them in this category. In fact, if you read the first paragraph of 'Arjuna', you will see that the meanings for this word are listed.

Regarding phrases, under the strict definition, I believe that all Sanskrit words in a sequence acting as a unit - especially those that are accompanied by Devanagari scripts - are also acceptable candidates for this category.

I have submitted your comments to one of the Hinduism project administrators for a second opinion, and if an opinion is offered, I will inform you of the outcome. In the meantime, I would appreciate very much that you refrain from undoing my edits. I will, however, be most inclined and even happy to discuss the proposed deletions of particular entries with you on my talk page. Thank you. --Cminard (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cminard, your comments regarding "Wikilove" etc. are perfectly beside the point. I made an observation regarding your edits. I was perfectly civil and detached. You seriously need to reconsider your approach here, Wikipedia isn't a community platform. You are free to ask for second opinions, but I would advise you to seek consensus on the scope of a category before embarking on a mass-edit spree adding articles. No, I will not "refrain from undoing your edits" if I think they are ill advised. If you want to discuss this constructively, you clearly made a false start here, feel free to try again. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an administrator?--Cminard (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, since November 2004, why? dab (𒁳) 12:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because it makes someone wonder why such an ignorant, dense, boorish, and spineless pussy is let loose when he should be put on a leash. I get it now you were made an administrator back when the standards were very low. 203.144.143.12 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently contacting the Sanskrit scholars regarding the other entries; however, your recent deletion of the word, Sanskrit, from the "Sanskrit words and phrases" category begs the question, "On what planet is the word Sanskrit not considered to be a Sanskrit word?" Your explanation would be most appreciated. Thank you.--Cminard (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you stop this nonsense please, and begin reflecting on the point of your category please? I realls don't want to waste time to debate something like this. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to be more clear - Why did you delete the word Sanskrit from the "Sanskrit words and phrases" category? Thank you.--Cminard (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because it is already in the Category:Sanskrit, which is a super-category of "Sanskrit words and phrases". dab (𒁳) 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation.--Cminard (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request your comment on the issue in discussion on Talk:Macedon#Macedon.27s_Territory. I think you will find everything there, including links to materials supporting my claims and to previous discussion of the subject.<br\ > My objection to the current form of describing the territory ("centered in the northern-most part of ancient Greece") arises mainly from it's lack of objectiveness and from the implied relationship between Ancient Greece and Ancient Macedonia. I understand that these are debated subjects and believe that the suggestions that I am trying to place forward will bring impartiality and clarity.<br\ > During the discussion became obvious to me that the materials used by the article (specifically, the maps in French) are not appropriate (I state the reasons in the linked discussion section). This is related to the point in debate and your opinion on the matter would be welcome. <br\ > Thank you for your attention, Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dieter, as we are at least five editors who often edit runic articles, I have started a work group. I thought you might be interested in it.--Berig (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am, thanks. dab (𒁳) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had an edit conflict with you on Science and the Bible, but I did not replace your material as TSR is not a RS. Please make your case in talk if you believe it to be, but note that Jason Gastrich (sp?) also has articles on that page, and I hope we can both agree we should not include the stupidity from his corner. Therefore, inclusion of his material is a strong negative vote for any sort of peer review or scholarship. --Faith (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with spinning the Bible's teachings, but everything to do with showing the Bible does not state what was put in the article. Please secure a third outside opinion on that fringe position, and the unreliable resource you tried to add, before replacing either one. And please stop removing the cited material from TO. It's a valid point that they made regarding the Egyptians. --Faith (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, what? I am pushing a "fringe position" now? What "unreliable source"? You are the one insisting that "Talkorigins.org points out it is possible the earth's spherical size and shape were recognized by the Egyptians around 2550 BC". And then you come lecturing me about "reliable sources". How novel. Look, we have perfectly solid sources giving as established that ""The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse." (Jewish Encyclopedia and Catholic Encyclopedia). It is you who are trying to make this go away and present it as merely a "notion" or "interpretation". Am I correct in assuming that by "fringe position" you mean the position of Jewish Encyclopedia and Catholic Encyclopedia, and that you base this appraisal on some unsourced claim about 26th century BC Egypt you read on talkorigins.org? You must be kidding me. dab (𒁳) 06:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fringe positions of the Skeptical Review, including "award winning scholars" JG and FT (for BLP, I'll use initials only; I'm sure you can work it out), who contribute to the site that you used to support your insertion. Talkorigin is at least peer-reviewed, and allowed all over Wikipedia as a reliable source. I've also added others, including "Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition", that you removed. You also removed the Scripture links, the citation I added for your unsourced claim, etc. I've called BS on the talk page, indicating you are going to have to find a 3O that agrees your uncited OR should replace my cited material. --Faith (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means insisting on the humorous Skeptical Review link, why do you keep going on about that? Ancient Egyptian cosmology is offtopic in an article on the Bible, and Talkorigin, while possibly a good source on the creationism debate, is certainly not acceptable as an Egyptological source. As for the rest of your piece, kindly review WP:SYN. If this is your position -- my "OR", your "cited material" (lol), I see no point in protracting this discussion. I have posted a note at WP:FTN. You may likewise seek third party input. dab (𒁳) 07:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I further note you have a history of edit warring over your weird notions of Biblical Inspiration. This makes you a problem editor in my book, and your contributions should probably receive wider review in a WP:FRINGE context. dab (𒁳) 07:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Runes. dab (𒁳) 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't care, like you have previously declared, but I wanted to get to give you opinion on finally starting to get some guidelines/rules when dealing with ACS people. Because there is a misunderstanding with the users and its leading to edit wars everywhere (Zelge fans being the latest.) Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac)#Setting_rules.2Fguidelines. Chaldean (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you know my opinion on this Chaldean. I am for strict enforcement of neutrality. Being yourself partisan to this, you will like this in some instances and not in others. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just becaue I am partisan, doesn't mean I can't put my views aside and be neutral in Wiki projects. Please tell me if the rules I have proposed are accordance with Wikipedia and its policies (neutrality, truthiness, etc.) If not, explain how so. Chaldean (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will. truthiness isn't Wikipedia policy, btw :o) dab (𒁳) 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was no fringe theories. Chaldean (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear Dieter for the award! I appreciate it a lot :).--Berig (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the current Urartu article, contains this statement: "Urartu (Assyrian: Urarṭu; Urartian: Biainili; Armenian: Ուրարտու) was an ancient kingdom which existed from ca. 860 BC, emerging from the Late Bronze Age until 585 BC. The Kingdom of Urartu was located in the mountainous plateau between Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and Caucasus mountains, later known as the Armenian Highland, and it centered around Lake Van (present-day eastern Turkey). The name corresponds to the Biblical Ararat."

The Bible refers to 'Ararat' in the book Jeremiah but is it a given that the name Ararat is indeed derived from Urartu. A yes or no answer is good enough Dab. I believe that Ararat Arev always took this position but I don't know if he was right here--at least this once. Artene50 (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "given", but afaik it's a perfectly common hypothesis that the names are related. Some reference would still be nice though. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to develop Anekantavada as a featured article candidate and require your help for additional contributions and improvements. I have got it peer reviewed by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) and Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) and require additional independent opinion. If you have sometime, I would appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear D,I thank you for going at it with wikidas (talk · contribs) with the "Krishna in the Rig Veda" question. I commend you. Please read my comment after you in that section. And, Please, dont let up with wikidas on this subject,please. We got fight back against his erroneous idea,please. dont let up. That is what he wants and that is his tactic. He is marring alot of articles with his non-sense ideas. Please.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My use of the word "bitch" in an edit summary has come under fire (look at this ... [41]. As the other editor concerned, I wonder if you would care to comment ... did you find the edit summary offensive? What did you think of the way I related to you on the Bitch (disambiguation) talk page? If you have time, the place to comment is on the RfC in the header of this thread. If you don't have time or don't care to comment - indeed even if your comments are anti. Either way, thanks. Abtract (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, the WP:CIVIL-Nazis are at it again. Some people are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Oh criminy, I just called somebody a nazi, I think my days on Wikipedia are over now. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment. Abtract (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you qualified a nonsense my normal question to see at least one source using a term "Transcaucasian Highlands" (invided by you?) for Urartu, Id like to let you know, that what you're doing is against the Wiki rules, another nonsence and a kind of POV-pushing. It sounds shameful for Wikipedia, but, Mr Wiki Admin, pls read: WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:EQ! Your nonsence writer, Andranikpasha (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you may want to focus on English spelling and syntax and try to express whatever point you may want to make calmly and coherently before joining the fray in obscure topics of the Early Iron Age in righteous anger and with guns blazing. dab (𒁳) 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again WP:EQ:) It is better to have bad English spelling (its not a shame, I never were in England), but to not have minimal knowledge of geography (Transcaucasian Highlands doesnt exist!), Iron Age history, sorry, also etiquete, to edit Historical articles at English Wikipedia. Im sure such an "activities" do nothing good for Wikipedia's image. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to argue the point that "Transcaucasian Highlands doesnt exist!" at Transcaucasian Highland. Also, there is no shame in contributing to one of the many non-English Wikipedia projects if they fit your linguistic skills better. dab (𒁳) 16:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im working here not cuz I have much time and the best English, but cuz people with so low level of historical knowledge and sometimes with the support of "denialsit institutes" are rewriting History here. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh-huh. I am sure that as a beacon of classical education and a paragon of learning, you will be able to do much good here. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. Dbachmann - the very definition of a polite and charming gentleman. Would Dbachmann just answer the question. In which source has he seen the phrase "Transcaucasian Highlands" used to describe the territory of Urartu? Meowy 23:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ask me a civil question, expect a civil answer. Rant at me in broken English, expect sarcasm. Troll my talkpage for no reason, expect nothing. Perhaps you should reconsider your own attitude in terms of "polite" and "charming" first. dab (𒁳) 05:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-npa1}} Since you seemed to want to be warned for it, here you go. For the record, had you actually read the RfC instead of just acting on Abtract's inaccurate canvas attempt, you would have seen that the "bitch" thing was in fact a very minor thing amongst much larger issues with him, including a lengthy history of incivility and edit warring with multiple editors. In the future, please actually look at all the facts before jumping to respond to a false call for help. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

wow. You may have noted I was commenting on the spurious "'bitch' thing" as spurious, and not the wider behaviour of Abtract. I would actually be your ally in denouncing Abtract's behaviour, if you wouldn't insist on surreal user warnings. You have a case against Abtract. Yet you decide to water them down by completely loony warning messages, and going off tangents to post loony warning messages to my talkpage. How, do you think, is this in the interest of anything you may be trying to achieve? dab (𒁳) 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...if you denounce his behavior, why even leave the message you did? If you realize it was part of a larger issue, why not simply either decline to comment, or leave remarks on the RfC noting you have also observed his inappropriate behavior (as you noted on his own talk page as well). Your message, instead, did nothing to help his case either. As for "loony" warning messages, there was nothing loony about it. You seemed to be asking for a civility warning for calling me a Nazi, so I just gave you what you asked for. None of this has any affect on Abtract's case at all. I simply responded to your insult on my talk page with the warning you asked for. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the practice on warning users over using the term "bitch", indeed using it appropriately within encyclopedic context. I agree Abtract shows questionable behaviour, but his usage of "bitch" does not seem to fall under that. I was not trying to have an effect on "Abtract's case" either way. I did not mean to insult you, I meant to point out that your approach here is completely irrational. From my perspective, this incident falls under the heading of "much ado about WP:CIVIL", not under the heading "the adventures of Abtract". My interaction with Abtract is restricted to some rather silly pedantism over the proper format of disambiguation pages: not something on which I wish to spill a lot of ink. Peace, dab (𒁳) 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I disagree that my approach is irrational, but the RfC is not just about the "bitch" thing. That's actually almost a non-issue compared to the tons of other issues, including incivility (far more blatant), edit warring, and wiki-stalking/harassment. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

sure. I am sorry if our interaction had got off on a wrong foot and I wish you joy. dab (𒁳) 21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got what I am assured is an excellent book on the Phoenicians by Glenn E Markoe, a Phoenician specialist. He clearly thinks that there was a lot of child sacrifice. He also cites Cleitarchus as an earlier writer about human sacrifice. I think that there is a bit of historical revisionism going on because, after all, it's embarrassing.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced there is some historicity to these accounts. But of course they would have been exaggerated by the Romans, since it was seen as embarassing even back then :) dab (𒁳) 08:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want a second opinion. I created the Category:Assassins by political orientation. But a little confused over Category:Conservative assassins. I think the Category:Conservative assassins and Category:Nationalist assassins intersects, and probably nationalism is better definition than conservatism. Should I redirect Category:Conservative assassins to Category:Nationalist assassins? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this seems rather flawed from the beginning. Over-categorization. Do we also need "assassins by favourite colour", or "assassins by sexual preference"? I think these categories should summarily go to CfD for review and wider input. dab (𒁳) 09:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Category:Nationalist assassins is clearly defined as Category:Anarchist assassins. Categorization of people based on political orientation is valid. I am tagging the Category:Conservative assassins for speedy since conservatism, unlikle nationalism, is not clearly defined. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why is categorization of assassins based on political orientation valid? It doesn't strike me as valid. It may or may not be possible, but does it serve any purpose? You can always tag a bio article with "Assassin" and "Anarchist", but what do we gain by combining these categories? dab (𒁳) 10:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I am telling is the motivation behind the assassination. For example take the case of Khalid Islambouli - it is very clear that he assassinated Anwar Sadat due to his Islamist belief and Egyptian Islamic Jihad's inspiration on him. An Jung-geun assassinated Itō Hirobumi clearly due to his Korean nationalist belief. Or if you take the case of Nathuram Godse, he killed Gandhi due to the Hindu nationalist belief. Gavrilo Princip was also a clearly Yugoslav Nationalist. Valerie Solanas was a radical feminist. I was giving emphasize on the political motivation behind the murder. But the question you raised and after a second evaluation, there are some article which states that the mental condition of the assassin was not sound during the time of assassination. It may undermine the political belief as he/she may not be engaged in assassination due to political reason, but due to mental condition. If you agree with my second logic, I have no objection in taking all these categories in Category:Assassins by political orientation to CfD. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the point is that an assassination may be politically motivated. If we have articles on individual assassinations, such categories may make sense. To translate this one-to-one to biography articles is dubious imho. But arguable I suppose. I was just stating my opinion. dab (𒁳) 12:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "Abolition and taboo" should be folded into "History by region." --Relata refero (disp.) 12:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe? under "Judaism"? Christianity proper never abolished human sacrifice since it inherited hs-free traditions from both Judaism and Ancient Rome, but of course it imposed its taboo against hs on all Christianized populations. Since Christianization was pretty much worldwide, 4th to 20th century, I find it difficult to file this away "by region". dab (𒁳) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. We need to make a distinction between the religious arguments against it by the three religions and the actual historical process. I'll think about the re-organisation that would do this in a minute, I'm just skimming Morton Smith and Weinfeld again to try and recall what that argument was about. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Following me around" was a cheap shot in the current situation. You know only too well that I have been watching Energy for some time. Let's not fall out; I quite like your style generally ... except on energy of course. :) Abtract (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how is it a "cheap shot" when you have reverted dab edits of mine for about the tenth time without bothering to give a justification? I am ready to debate, but I will not put up with your current practice. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My "current practice being"? Abtract (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look, either you make clear what it is you want and show willingness to carve out a compromise, or you just drop it. dab (𒁳) 13:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had this prepared to send but JHJ got in first: mos:dab is there for a purpose. Your version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=215040252 runs counter to the manual of style in several ways. First, wp is not a dictionary which means the lead line cannot read like this Energy (from Greek ἐνέργεια "operation, activity") may refer to. Second, the primary article is the root article (the article named as the dab page but without "disambiguation") ... so Energy is the primary article. Of course there may be legitimate disagreement with this but it can only be addressed by changing the name of that article to Energy (qualifier) not by refusing to follow guidelines on this dab page. Third, each entry should start with the target article. Fourth, "toponymy" is incorrectly formatted. Fifth, "as a proper name" is incorrectly formatted and has no entries. Do I really need to continue? Abtract (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute this. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does not equal "Wikipedia may not contain dictionary definitions", it merely means "Wikipedia shouldn't have pages that are mere dictionary definitions". As for the primary meaning for the purposes of informed disambiguation, that's open to informed debate. I invite you to stop behaving legalistically in this because it will get you nowhere. I fail to see how "toponymy" is "incorrectly formatted". Do you know what a guideline is? If you insist on a non-bolded "In", I won't stop you, but I also won't take summary reverts over nonsense like that. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dab! This is not correct: "The official term of the plateau in Turkish usage is "Eastern Anatolian Highland". They call Eastern Anatolian Highland only the Western Armenia, but never the territory of current Armenia, or the Iranian, or Georgian parts of the Armenian Highland. There is a difference between the borders and you can correct it after checking out the turkish source. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I took this from the de-wiki article, but you are welcome to correct it for accuracy, or slap it with a {{fact}} tag for now. --dab (𒁳) 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Energy (disambiguation), it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]