| Revision as of 09:29, 25 March 2007 editMER-C (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators250,691 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 75.4.25.182 identified as vandalism to last revision by MER-C.← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:31, 25 March 2007 edit undo75.4.25.182 (talk) ←Replaced page with '---- How stupid and foolish can you be?? Dont you see im upset that im banned and I hae to come in and put our TRUE history You got it now?/??? Its me , go...'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| How stupid and foolish can you be?? Dont you see im upset that im banned and I hae to come in and put our TRUE history | |||
| <span style="font-size:60%">]: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / ]: – 25 Nov 04 / ]: – 19 Dec 04 / ]: – 11 Jan 05 / ]: – 8 Mar 05 / ]: – 6 May 05 / ]: – 1 Jul 05 / ]: – 12 Aug 05 / ]: – 7 Nov 05 / ]: </span><span style="font-size:70%"> – 13 Dec 05 / ]: – 16 Jan 06 ]: – 22 Feb 06 / ]: – 21 March 06 / ]: – 19 May 06 / ]: – 5 Jul 06 / – 9 Aug 06 / <: – 9 Sep 06 / : – 2 Oct 06 / : – 23 Oct 06 / : – 30 Nov 06 / </span><span style="font-size:80%"> : – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / : – 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ---- | |||
| ==BOT - Regarding your recent protection of ]:== | |||
| You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on ]. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. ] 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You got it now?/??? Its me , go check 100 the password is 100 | |||
| As you may remember, there was discussion of moving the page. Although several editors supported the move, there was not that many commentators. So I've listed it as proposed move and in the Village Pump and have opened up an informal poll. I'm not sure if you care either way but as you took part in the earlier discussion, I thought you may be interested in clarifying your views in the new discussion. ] Cheers. ] 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| go check k9 its k9 etc etc | |||
| Go check those have the same passwords for those in the Armenia edit history | |||
| ==Request for Mediation== | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="width:80%" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| | | |||
| |A ] to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, ]. | |||
| ::::::::''For the Mediation Committee,'' <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> | |||
| <small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account operated by the ] to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please ].</center></small> | |||
| |} | |||
| <div align="right">''This message delivered: 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)''.</div> | |||
| == An article that you worked on == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I have added a "{{]}}" template to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "]" and ]). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the <code><nowiki>{{dated prod}}</nowiki></code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ] 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Speed of light article dispute == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Could you have a look at the ] article and the discussion? An editor in Hungary has decided that a formula is wrong and resents my efforts to clarify matters. He may have been the one who recently blanked the article. At least he has promised to make trouble. | |||
| Thanks. ] 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Linkspam through images == | |||
| Check . Clearly the intent is to shill this "Himalayan Academy" outfit. Don't know what to do about this (if anything?) I found it only because the user added a ridiculously sappy image to the ] page. ] 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : The plot thickens with {{user|Himalayan Academy Publications}}, who has created the ] page, and linked to it from ]. The idea here clearly is to use Misplaced Pages to publicize this "instant karma" outfit in Hawaii: how do grab you?:-) Perhaps an AfD for the ] page (on grounds of unencyclopedic content and non-notability of subject) would be in order? ] 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry to overhear your conversation, but I also have noticed this flurry of promotional activity. I just removed the link to the ] page from the ] because it does look to me that this is part of a systematic spam campaign of some sort. The pictures have been showing up on some pages I keep on my watch list, which is how I first noticed this. I do think that the people doing it are probably sincere, however, and so this seems a bit different from the usual crass spamlink. Perhaps they just do not know about the spam guidelines, and some friendly outreach may be in order before lowering the boom. ] 03:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::of course. They are offering their images as it were, and it is up to a case-by-case evaluation if they contribute to the each article. I don't think the images are very enclopedic, but they may have some uses as illustrations in some cases. Nothing terrible is happening. ] <small>]</small> 12:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Lemurian scrolls, huh? Misplaced Pages really never ceases to amaze :) ] <small>]</small> 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:Hypothetical Indo-European subfamilies == | |||
| Hi Dab. You removed the link to ] that I had added in the previous edit. While it may not be an IE subfamily within itself, I concluded that since each subfamily is classified according to whether it falls into or between these two groups, the classification is notable. Based on this, I would like to keep the link within the template. Please tell me what you think. Regards, '''] (]·]·])''' 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :it is an isogloss, yes, but from the very beginning it was recognized as ''not phylogenetic'', so that the isogloss has really nothing to do with "hypothetical subfamilies". You could extend the template to include various isoglosses, I suppose, but as it is, the link is really not at home in the template. ] <small>]</small> 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see what you mean. My original point was that it was an isogloss that seperated the subfamilies in question, but you have a point about it not actually fitting in with the subfamilies. OK, we'll keep it out of the template. '''] (]·]·])''' 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I've finished working on that article, at least I hope so. I would appreciate you comment, if you have time. -] 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| It used to be called "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts" but Kennethtennyson, for reasons which utterly escape me, moved it to its present title. | |||
| If you want to move ahead with the merger, I suggest you get ] involved. | |||
| Frankly, given my druthers, I would just delete both articles and restore the pertinent sections of "Shaolin Kung Fu" and "Bodhidharma" to and version, respectively. | |||
| Merci vielmals!<br>] 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. There's a book scheduled to come out sometime this year, ''The Shaolin Monastery'' by Meir Shahar. Some of the material in the book has already been published as articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, and once it comes out, it will be the only truly scholarly and comprehensive treatment of the subject. | |||
| We should probably do what we can now, with the caveat that we'll probably have to do much of this work all over again once the book comes out. | |||
| :Freedom skies has used your merge tag on "Bodhidharma..." to accuse me of "ethrocentric Chinese bias". | |||
| :Could I trouble you to clarify the situation at ]? | |||
| :] 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Vielen dank. Can you believe that Freedom skies called me "ethrocentric"? That's rot furry. ] 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You, sir, are an obvious sock of an undercover Chinese ethlocentrist! And a pathetic one at that, you cannot even spell your ''r'''s properly! ] <small>]</small> 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hasn't Bakaman told you? There's no such thing as sockpuppets. ] 13:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::no, BakaSUPRman has kept me out of the loop again :( no such thing as sockpuppets? What then? Only the finest Astroturf, I expect? ] <small>]</small> 13:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Speaking of socks, say hello to . ] 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Socks of Maleabroad == | |||
| I don't recall if you have been involved in dealing with the various socks of ] or not. A very active new one as ] is under discussion at ], ], and . We gave tagged he user page as a suspected sock of Maleabroad twice, but he has removed both tags. If you have nothing better to do can you take a look? I include you in the loop only because you may have prior knowledge of Maleabroad's editing patterns. ] 16:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hinduism origin == | |||
| Can you weigh in on ] (and its ]) ? The question is basically, whether "Hinduism originated on the Indian subcontinent" is correct, or whether there is support for saying that it originated in the Arctics. I'll also ask Rudra for his opinion. Thanks. ] 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :in the '''arctics'''? I am sorry but this is hardly worth spending time on. Hinduism ''by definition'' originated in India. ] <small>]</small> 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with dab here. The (partial) artic origin of Hinduism in my experience is limited to two people, ] and ]. The main page should only deal with mainstream ideas. In this particular instance, both Western academics and Hindu devotees for once agree about something broadly speaking so continuing such a discussion IMO is futile. <b><font color="teal">]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">]</font></b></sup> 09:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| well, as Buddhipriya points out on the discussion page, quoting Mallory, the "Arctic" stuff has notability beyond Tilak, | |||
| :"Tilak's 'polar theory' for Aryan origins was not a bizarre quirk of a single individual but rather the culmination of an extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth ... A modern review of this 'northern cycle' of myths can be found in ] (1980) who argues that Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Scythian traditions (and by cultural contact also Greeks) all shared a common mythology of a northern mountainous land which, he argues, could only have been acquired in their prior common home on the Pontic-Caspian steppe." | |||
| this doesn't change the fact that this is mostly confused nonsense, but it is confused nonsense which can itself be the subject of encyclopedic discussion (], ], etc. etc.) ] <small>]</small> 09:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == request for Arbitration == | |||
| Dab, I have requested arbitration to resolve our dispute ]. Please provide your input in the appropriate section.] 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would encourage you to, even though Sbhushan's arbcom listing appears to mischaracterize certain small details such as previous steps in DR process, the nature of the dispute, etc. | |||
| I think even though one Arbcom member has listed this as a content dispute, it certainly might be viewed as a behavior issue among the other parties - something which might be good to get out of the way. -]] 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Women in warfare timelines== | |||
| I noticed that you did some work on the women in warfare timelines. While I'm glad to see that you've taken an interest in the subject, I must object to your expounging of legendary women in war. I have made it very clear on the timelines that the women are legendary and that the dates I placed for them are merely estimates of times that they may have lived. I think that they should be included for the sake of exhaustiveness. Also, the information in the paragraphs that you've added to the top of articles would be better placed into the timeline itself, along with dates accompanying the events you describe, such as the Battle of Bråvalla.I'm not trying to give you hard time, of course, I just wanted to give you some constructive criticism. ] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I know, I'm sorry I made a mess. My main objective was to clean up the ] article. Feel free to deal with the timelines articles as you see fit, I just felt it was necessary that the material I removed from the Amazons articles should show up in the edit history of the "women in warfare" articles. I do think it would be good to have some coherent prose for each period rather than naked timelines, but I'm not going to interfere any further, feel free to either revert or incorporate stuff as you see fit. regards, ] <small>]</small> 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I wasn't expecting you to do all that, but I'm genuinely grateful that you did. I have ''never'' seen a sockpuppet smacked down with such undue haste. ] 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :I'm getting that unhealthy boost when provoked, I know :o/ ] <small>]</small> 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Rig Veda bibliography == | |||
| Thanks for collaborating on the update to the Rig Veda editions. It is likely that some of the source details that I am adding from other places may conflict with details that you are aware of. I am working from printed bibliography sources here, so if you spot cases where you have additional or different information I suggest that you add rather than revert any sourced changed that I make. You may also want to add fact tags to any that you think may be wrong and then we can check them together over the next week. I am noticing some dating issues that may be due to reissues or reprints, for example. It will be nice to get this updated by working together. ] 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :yes, I see no problems so far -- I just didn't want to have two sections titled "Translations", listing them once is enough. Keep up the good work, ] <small>]</small> 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I had not finished the changes I was making while I had the "Construction" tag on, but I see that you have chosen to work on the issue about editions versus translations before I had finished. That's fine, I will abandon work on the article pending completion of your work. I would prefer that you not remove the references that I am adding, and simply add additional variants, so we can get a variant list established. We can then smooth out any issues with variants as another step. My plan was to finish adding what I had as new material and remove duplicates, which is why I put the Construction tag on. ] 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::don't be insulted, I was merely pointing out mistakes you were making. I didn't remove any of your references, but it appeared you didn't understand what you were doing. To begin with, an edition and a translation are two completely different things. Then, Elizarenkova published ''excerpts'' in 1972, and a full translation in portions 1989-99. There is nothing wrong with your references, but you seem to have difficulties recognizing them for what they are. No problem, it's a wiki. ] <small>]</small> 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I just wanted to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Tigris is simply Ararat arev's sockpuppet. The behavior matches perfectly. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 01:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem is that {{user|Tigris}} is a sleeper sock with its first edits back in April 2006, while {{user|Ararat arev}} only became active in December 2006. ] <small>]</small> 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, some of these accounts actually go far as back as 2004, which gives me the impression that he is in fact hacking into these accounts somehow. This is just my theory. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::the account names are too uniform. Also, hacking accounts, and give them away in a single edit by using the same stupid edit summary? And, Ararat hacking passwords doesn't strike me as very likely, he didn't leave the impression of being the brightest bulb in the chandelier. It doesn't matter, after all, we'll just block the socks as they come in. At least this Armenian sockmaster makes the Hindutvas look less bad, who otherwise are beginning to look like the most pathetic sock-circus in the wikiverse. ] <small>]</small> 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Your wrong Dbachmann its me Ararat arev | |||
| ] 09:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| And all of you ignorant people will finally realize our true history. This isnt about nationalism at all, these are "Ancient Records" that you had never seen in your life or heard about. Im not talking about the Akkadian one either. ] 09:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If this is the only way to prove our history Im going to do it. Yes im hacking accounts ] 09:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You want me to prove to you its me Dbachmann? Open the Armenia page to find out :) | |||
| I don't care who you are, dear, it really doesn't matter. As long as you were editing in good faith, you had a chance to influence articles. Now that you're vandalizing, you will just be reverted and blocked. Nobody has yet successfully influenced Misplaced Pages in this way, and believe me, people tried before you. The most you can aspire to is getting your entire provider blocked (but you'll need to be really good for that) ] <small>]</small> 09:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==My revert== | |||
| I'm sorry if your edit was intended to contribute to the page ], but the edit you made does not make sense. You changed: | |||
| "The first artificial limb discovered was found in a tomb in Capua, Italy, dating to ] and was made of copper and wood" | |||
| to read: | |||
| "Mytholgically referred to in the ], the "iron leg" given to ] by the ], the first artificial limb discovered archaeologically was found in a tomb in Capua, Italy, dating to ] and was made of copper and wood." | |||
| Thus, you seem to be claiming that an ancient iron leg referred to in 3000+ year-old ancient Indian texts, was in fact constructed 2300 years ago of copper and wood, and turned up in an Italian tomb. I see no other way to read what you wrote. Since this statement is obviously impossible, not to mention a run-on sentence, I labeled it "incoherent" and noted that it could have been intentionally malicious. If it was not, I apologize. | |||
| ] 02:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no idea how you could get such an impression. I agree the sentence is a bit "run-on", you would be free to silently clarify the obviously intended reading by separating the statement into two sentences. I wouldn't dream of claiming even that there ever was a 3000+ year-old "iron leg", hence the "mythologically". ] <small>]</small> 10:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re:== | |||
| ] consists of an unencyclopaedic term: "pseudoscience". It is neither a branch of study in history, nor anything. If anything, it should be "Hindutva science" or "Hindu science" or something, in that article, under sections "criticisms", or "false claims", or "use by Hindutva proponents" you should discuss what you are planning to. Being something is encyclopaedic, not-being something is not.--] 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You will note that we have an entire ], and that our ] gives a reasonable, well-referenced outline of the topic. So, no, you are wrong, sorry. There are citeable academic definitions of what qualifies as pseudoscience. The topic is also discussed on ] itself, with Sokal's paper giving an in-depth analysis of the connections of political radicalism, religious fundamentalism and pseudoscientific babble in Hindu nationalism. ] <small>]</small> 16:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have never heard of ''Hindutva pseudoscience'' before. I don't disagree that some people are using false claims. But I want to draw your attention to the fact that history is not science. It uses many scientific methodologies but it is at the end, speculation, unlike palaeontology, for example. Hindutva pseudoscience as a term does not exist and should not be coined on Misplaced Pages. Please stop pushing for your point of view as if it is academic.{{unsigned|Scheibenzahl}} | |||
| :::maybe if you would ''read'' the article, you would note that ] discusses Hindutva fringe literature in an essay entitled ''Pseudoscience and Postmodernism''. This article is supposed to be about the pseudo''scientific'' claims concerning the universal validity of the Vedas, while the ] one is supposed to be about the pseudo''historical'' or pseudo''archaeological'' claims concering the "Aryan race" and fantastic age claims for the Vedic texts. I never claimed the article was finished, and you are welcome to help building it. So far, your "objections" are not very helpful, and I must say, do not appear to be made entirely in good faith. ] <small>]</small> 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Retaliatory tactics == | |||
| Hello sir, | |||
| Please avoid retaliatory tactics against me for the AfD nom by tagging my page. Since you are an administrator, there is a clear conflict of interest in falsely accusing me when I point out your biases regarding this matter. I request that you participate in this AfD without attacks, incivility or turning wikipedia into a battleground. ] 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have identified you as a sock ], Hkelkar, I just couldn't be bothered to tag your page. It is people with characters like yours that turn wikipedia into a battleground, sadly. Your tactic against my alleged bias would be to cite academic sources to straighten it out, just like I was forced to dig for academic sources. Since you cannot do that, you indulge in trolling and sockpuppeteering. Which really reinforces my position: if there was bona fide material to hold against it, you could just do that instead. ] <small>]</small> 22:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry that you think this way. I do not wish to edit-war or stoop to this level so I won't respond in the way that you do. Your falsely accusing me while I detail your biases is an indication that you are abusing your reputation and powers to silence your detractors. Your post does not change the issue of POV forking off of multiple articles. ] 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You had your chance to edit constructively like everyone else. I am prepared to discuss and review all of my edits in the light of sourced criticism brought up constructively by editors in good standing. You have shown that you are not capable of such, and you were banned from Misplaced Pages for a reason. ] <small>]</small> 08:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I find it also telling that when ] used to be a redirect to ], you tried to get it deleted for being unrelated to that article. And when I begin expanding it into a full article, lo and behold, it is a ''pov-fork'' of ]. So much for consistency. It is plain, of course, that all you really want is to avoid having a dedicated discussion of the Hindutva pseudo-scholarly propaganda machine. This used to be possible as long as academia couldn't be bothered to react to the fringecruft, but this has changed over the past few years, and there are now a number of studies in religious fundamentalism and politically motivated pseudo-scholarship that allow encyclopedic addressing of this unwholesome topic face-on. | |||
| :::For the record and anybody watching this, I would like to add that I am slightly disgusted with the whole enterprise. I find "]", that is, hate groups and mob violence, uninteresting and sad. And I don't have an ounce more sympathy for a Muslim or Christian mob than for a Hindu mob. But at least the militant Muslim mobs tend to be satisfied with angry chanting and some waving about of Kalashnikovs, while the militant Hindus for all in the world seem to feel compelled to back up their sectarian sentiments with insane pseudo-scholarly babble. This results in direct attacks on the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and this is where I became involved: I used to discuss innocent topics of Vedic philology, and only ever became involved in all this Hindutva nonsense because the articles kept getting butchered by ethnocentric fantasies. I would like everyone to understand that the more people push this nonsense, the more I will be forced to put it into perspective, even if it is not what I am interested in; you really have nothing to gain by provoking me, the only thing you'll achieve is that I'll invest more time into encyclopedic discussions of the politics involved. ] <small>]</small> 09:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hkelkar socks == | |||
| Hi Dab. You will be interested in ]. Do inform me if you suspect anyone else of being an Hkelkar sock. Dmc has blocked some University of Texas IPs. Let's hope that we don't see any more of Hkelkar for a few days. - ] (]) 06:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:31, 25 March 2007
How stupid and foolish can you be?? Dont you see im upset that im banned and I hae to come in and put our TRUE history
You got it now?/??? Its me , go check 100 the password is 100
go check k9 its k9 etc etc
Go check those have the same passwords for those in the Armenia edit history