Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:30, 18 April 2009

generic {{talkheader}}:

Note that this talkpage may be semiprotected due to disruption by anonymous users. If you have a very new account, chances are that you do not absolutely need to send me a personal message before you have made your first ten edits elsewhere. Also, if you want to discuss an encyclopedic topic, feel free to attract my attention by using article talkpages. I usually do react to e-mails, but as a rule I prefer to keep my interactions regarding Misplaced Pages above-the-board and up for everyone to see. This is also the reason for which I absolutely reject IRC admin discussions, and why I am unsure about the merit of the Misplaced Pages mailing-list. Decisions regarding the administration of Misplaced Pages in my opinion should be made on-wiki, not off.

Archives:

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 Feb 08 / 1F – 06:35, 3 Jun 08 / 20 – 15:15, 18 Nov 08 / 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Marie-Rose

I gave him a 24 hour block as a sock. Did you notice my Viking question a bit above? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

a sock of whom? was Rose-Marie banned? I don't understand why you would block a sock for a day: either it is an abusive sock of another account, and as such should be banned indefinitely, or it is just a user behaving disruptively, deserving a temporal block or misbehaviour, not for being a sock. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that Rose-mary (talk · contribs) is effectively permabanned. In this case, we can just slap the socks with blocks as they show up, no need to waste time over this. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've added Glotz but also Robinson to the main article. I agree, no need to waste time, delete and block. I didn't want to put a long block on an IP address, although if this continues we may need a range block which I've never done. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just done a range-block, see my log. Unless it is really necessary, you should avoid rangeblocks of more than 10 bit or so (numbers smaller than /26); short blocks of /24 (8 bit) and below shouldn't be a problem unless you hit AOL or similar. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:JeanVinelorde

Hello Dab, User:JeanVinelorde has recently been changing everything once again, just look at his history and you will see everything that he is changing. Also I am pretty sure that he is a puppet, how can we make sure that we do not have a puppet in our hands? Malik Danno (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

look, I cannot babysit all the world's Assyrians or Syriacs indefinitely. Can you please try and enforce WP:CONSENSUS on these articles? --dab (𒁳) 18:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We clearly have seen that many don't respect consensuses ... hence the existence of the Syriac people page, if you are unwilling to help out, can you please direct me to an admin who would. Thank-you. Malik Danno (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

what I am saying is that you do not need an admin to revert the recreation of the Syriac people cfork. Just do it. --dab (𒁳) 18:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

but won't that lead to edit wars and other immature bullshit like that? Malik Danno (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR should take care of that. Talk about "immature bullshit", this is what the Syriac/Assyrian topics have been like for years. We now have a chance to get some stability by sticking to an awkward but extremely neutral compromise. --dab (𒁳) 05:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yoga

Could you please comment on a proposal to more strongly present the position that Harappan seals are figures in yogic positions at Talk:Yoga#Proposed_rewrite_of_archeological_evidence? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Oghuz turkish

Doesn't it seem like User:Wayiran? Alefbe (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at his recent edits. Shouldn't he be stopped? Alefbe (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AE

For your information: Grandmaster 05:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Movses Khorenatsi

There is an ongoing discussion among those pesky Armenian editors and their ugly Movses Khorenatsi article that you might want to check out. Or has the damage been done? TA-ME (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure your tone is bound to make them more amenable to reason, but yes, they are being silly. --dab (𒁳) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenian transliteration

Hi. I noticed you're the one starting the Romanization of Armenian article. Now, I was wondering where did you get the transliteration values for Hubschmann-Meillet system? Particularly, that է = ê, ռ = r̄ and օ = ô? I could not find Antoine Meillet and Heinrich Hübschmann, Altarmenisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg, 1913 online, which is the primary source, but the ones I did find, e.g this or this or this claim է = ē, ռ = ṙ and օ = ō. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I had the printed 1913 source in front of me when I wrote this. I am confident it is correct (but perhaps there are minor differeces between editions?). But the differences are minimal, and your online source states they are "following the Huebschmann-Meillet (HM) tradition as closely as possible". I don't know why it wasn't "possible" to follow them exactly, but there you are. --dab (𒁳) 21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oghuz turkish

I have blocked Oghuz turkish (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Spider 2200 (talk · contribs). This has been confirmed through CheckUser by Dominic. If you want, he can give an on-wiki confirmation, but he is unrelated to Wayiran (talk · contribs). Khoikhoi 04:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the edit history, it's quite obvious that spider_2200 is a sock-puppet itself. Alefbe (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

we are looking at a swamp of combined sock and meatpuppery. It is impossible to say how many distinct people there are, but I say is isn't relevant, since in effect there is little difference between operating socks, or conspiring with other people off-wiki and have them operate your socks for you. This is the regular crazy nationalist tag-team effort, nothing new. I'm not sure it is worth anyone's while figuring out who is whose sock exactly - WP:DENY. --dab (𒁳) 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

I've undone your reverts on Germanic Europe and Germanic peoples - since those edits are isolated from the current move discussion. On that note, I've left a reply on the Germanic peoples talk page. Lingamondo (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you certainly have a cheek. You tell me that I'm edit warring, after I've reverted you once, and you've reverted me twice? If anyone is edit warring, it's you.

You're not listening to me. The things that you reverted aren't anything to do with the move discussion. The edits I made moved a chunk of text from Germanic Europe to Germanic peoples (since that was what the paragraph was describing).

The map is another issue, and if you wish to discuss that, revert that alone. For this reason, I'm reverting you, and if you wish to, remove the map until we have discussed further. Lingamondo (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

you are the one trying to introduce weird changes to long standing articles. I am not defending "my version", I am reverting your nonsense to the standing consensus revisions. You obviously have no idea how things work here, in spite of your apparent experience at simple:. I ask you again to read up on the introductory pages which you were pointed to on your talkpage. You obviously do not have the first clue about the topics you are trying to edit. This may not matter much at simple-wiki, but it certainly does on en-wiki, on article with a history of expert attention such as Germanic peoples. At this point I may also point you to WP:DISRUPT and warn you that the sort of show you are giving at the moment may quickly lead to WP:BLOCKs. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* you're not exactly the civil user I'd hoped you'd be. I have taken the effort upon me to remove the map which you disagree with. Now can you explicitly state why you wanted it removed, so we can proceed with discussion. Lingamondo (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

look, I do not wish to invest any time in "disputes" as groundless as this one. I am not going to "explain" why the map of current Germanic languages is misplaced at the head of the Germanic peoples article just because you ask me to. I will also not "explain" why I will not be enthusiastic about a picture of a penguin, or the Taj Mahal. Ok? Try WP:3O. If you can convince any user that what you are trying to do makes sense, there may be a debate in this. I just happened to be the first user to revert your antics. I have no doubt that others will do the job for me if I let this lie for the time being. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hellenic languages

Hi, I think we could do with your input at Talk:Hellenic languages, especially its relation to your old Proto-Greek article. Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiestud (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

?

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I am a partisan?--Yannismarou (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not "a partisan" -- "partisan (adj.)" I don't suppose you want to declare you aren't?

User:JeanVinelorde

Need help blocking? I can of course easily see that he's a tendentious POV-pushing account, but the sock claim is a bit difficult to test for an outsider. But if you can give me a bit of a pointer showing the link to the sockmaster, he's gone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced that JeanVinelorde is a sock of banned user AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs). The main clue is his signature stupidity of failing to oppose the numerically stronger Assyrianist faction within Misplaced Pages policy, which would actually have a good chance of success, and just creating random pov-forks instead. I do not assume that two independent supporters of the Arameanist pov would be likely to show the exact same type of dense-headedness. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Confirmed as "likely" by Checkuser too, so: blocked. Send a package of Swiss chocolates to Dmcdevit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah. once I receive my huge shipping of sweets from the various Syriac patriarchs for my pains in babysitting their youngsters. --dab (𒁳) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much syrup in their stuff. Swiss chocolates are better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Category of Anti-(Nationality) in this case Anti-Turkism, Anti-Armenianism etc...

The Category Anti-Turkism page is relevant as the "organizations" (some of whom are listed as terrorits organizations by the U.S. and the E.U.) and people who fought, fought the Turkish state and/or individuals for ideological/nationalistic/political purposes as the Turkish state was an obstacle for thier goals. In case of nationalism Anti-Turkism is totally relevant and applicable as their nationalisms and actions clashed or still clashes with Turkish nationalism and the Turkish state, and vice versa. The same applies for the Category Anti-Armenianism. So for the sake of partiality either these two categories should be erased or should stay. The same applies for the other Anti-(Nationality) Categories as well. But not one or the other.

P.S. I am neither Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian or Greek; I am Iranian if anybody was curious about me. But I don't think that is relevant either.

Saguamundi —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Your nationality is indeed irrelevant. What matters is the bias in your edits. If your interest is in exposing anti-Turkish sentiment wherever possible, that is fair enough, but you will have to hold yourself answerable to the strictest application of WP:RS. This means, you can insert a discussion of "anti-Turkism" wherever you like, provided you can produce an academic reference discussing the topic in terms of anti-Turkism, but not otherwise. Simple, isn't it. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better to discuss this at CfD where I have proposed the category for deletion . --Folantin (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting an academician and other persons who did not participate in any violent acts, in this category was excessive, I agree, but for the organizations some of whom are listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. and the E.U. and some of the individuals who are/were leaders or members of these organizations and are branded as terrorists, and did order or participate in violent acts (such as assinations or bombings) is entirely appropriate. --Saguamundi —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

the point is that it isn't enough if the categorization is "appropriate". The condition is that you have proven it to be appropriate, before you add the category. In other words, the burden of proof lies with you. You cannot add the category and leave it to others to provide the references substantiating it even if there are such references. You provide these references, and then you add the category, for each article seprarately. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient history

Yet again, Reddi wants to include prehistory in this, I don't understand why as he doesn't discuss it - I reverted giving a reason, he replaced it with no reason. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reddi is ready for a long ban. He simply isn't helping the project in any way at this point. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Map

Hi Dbachmann, I hope you are doing fine. I have a question regarding this map, because it contains a small mistake. The reference to "Turkic tribes" in it is historically not correct, because the first Turkic tribe - the Ashina - was mentioned 500 years later. Maybe you should replace the expression with "Altaic tribes". See also de:Türk (Stamm). Thank you. Tajik (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, that would properly be "Proto-Turkic" tribes, Xiongnu or similar. --dab (𒁳) 06:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I think that "Proto-Turkic" is still not correct. The Xiongnu were not "proto-Turkic" either, though they may have contained some proto-Turkic tribes. The geographical location suggests settlements of Altaic tribes (proto-Turkic & proto-Mongolic, such as Xianbey). But at ca. 200 AD, the region might also have been Indo-European Tokharian (Kushan?!). Anyway, I think it's the safest to remove the word "Turkic" and replace it with "Altaic" or simply "Inner Asian tribes". Tajik (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

yes. You see, the Turkic or Tocharian question isn't the point of the map. The "Yuezhi" are supposed to represent the Tocharians. I agree "Altaic tribes" would be a good solution, but I don't know if I can still find the layered .xcf file to easily modify this map I uploaded three years ago. It's not a big enough deal to me to invest two hours in fixing it. --dab (𒁳) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Assyrian page move

I have replied on my talk page; I prefer to keep discussions in one place. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

The pages on the early Safavid shahs are pretty inadequate. I'm not particularly a specialist in this field but there again I haven't seen any real experts editing there. Unsurprisingly, the biggest draw is the Safavid dynasty article - check out the ten talk page archives full of the usual ethnic bitchery (of the Iranic versus Turkic kind). So I appreciate being able to make a few improvements without some little <valued editor> throwing rocks at me. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have the time to grok this atm. But we both know it is time for a solid, biting "ethnic bitchery gets you blocked" policy. --dab (𒁳) 18:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. That's the main thing. This is just one example. (Although it's obvious that ANI is completely hopeless at dealing with any of this). --Folantin (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

let me tell you that getting no reaction from ANI is one of the better experiences you can have. You are rather more likely to get some admin doing something completely stupid along the lines of Misplaced Pages:Anti-elitism. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, maybe. I think my report was just a tad complicated for the average IRC admin. From what I've seen over the past year, ANI is only for dealing with pre-teens emptying their potties over one another, fake suicide threats, Wiki-politicians trying to prove how "nice" they are by unblocking noted jackasses and the eternal Giano Wars. --Folantin (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Moses of Choren

Hi. Could you please check the latest edits to that article? They just returned the article to its original state, claiming the 5th century dating as a fact. Grandmaster 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I rolled back the last bunch of edits by Marshal Bagramyan, which basically returned the article to its original state and removed most of the criticism of the 5th century dating. I find it strange that after such a long discussion and tons of sources provided he can come and just suppress the info about the later dating, as if it does not even exist or it is something not worthy of any attention. Grandmaster 05:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

sure, this is just "ethnic bitchery" as Folantin calls it in the section above this one. Before I edited Misplaced Pages, I never guessed how many people there are with an obsession over their ethnic identity. And these aren't rural yokels as a rule, mostly these are alienated tech students trying to compensate for feeling lost. You would never have guessed that technological institutes would turn out to be breeding irrationality and ethnic hatemongery, but then the human soul isn't linear and the planners often end up with the opposite of what they bargained for because they do not take that into account. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I don't know about the educational background of the people involved in this discussion, but they are all young. The thing is that in many places where the ethnic conflicts take place history is just a tool for justification of claims for a certain territory. It's like, we came here first, and the place is ours, as if history really matters when the international community looks into the territorial disputes. Historical figures are often also seen not as real persons, but as symbols. Therefore every nation has its own patriotic interpretation of history, and questioning such interpretations often causes hostile reaction. Younger people are usually more zealous. With regard to the article in question, something needs to be done to get certain people to see that Moses of Chorene is not seen by majority of serious experts as a 5th century figure. Not that they cannot see it, they just don't want to see. --Grandmaster 15:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)