Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:38, 25 September 2009

generic {{talkheader}}:

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 do not think highly of 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) – 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving?

Hi, umm.. your tpage is huge. ClueBot does great at archiving.. would you mind enabling it? → ROUX ₪ 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

heh, it was just 333k. Let's try and reach 444 next time around :) --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Req.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Arbitration Request by Logos5557 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logos5557 (talk • contribs)

Appearance (Venetic)

This is from Early Roman Armies (Men-at-Arms) by Nicholas Sekunda and Richard Hook,1995,ISBN-10: 1855325136,Colour plates,The Venetic fighting system,Fifth century BC, Infantry the ones of the right. Can someone make a sketch of them?Megistias (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

early chariots

Hello! I was putting together a small presentation on horseback riding and chariots and found your image on the spread of the chariot, dating the earliest chariots north of the Aral Sea ca. 2000 BC. I'm a bit confused, for the very same article on chariots state that the earliest chariots were found in Sumer, ca. 3000 BC, as I always assumed. Am I getting something wrong?--- Cheers, Louie (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

this is about spoke-wheeled, horse-drawn chariots. The "chariots" of EBA Sumer were essentially carts, with solid disk-wheels and drawn by asses. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So (correct me if I'm wrong), donkey-propelled, not spiked carts are earlier, perhaps sumerian, while spike-wheeled horse-drawn chariots are later, typically indoeuropean. Which actually assumes early trade or communication between indoeuropeans and sumerians at the end of the Early Bronze Age. In other words, the indoeuropeans improved an earlier technology. Right? Louie (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

spokes, not spikes. Well, the wheel itself was probably invented in Sumer or thereabouts, close to 5000 BC. Your donkey-carts are the descendant technology, 2000 years later. During that time, the wheel spread across most of Eurasia, so no, the Indo-Europeans didn't need to get the wheel from the Sumerians directly, they were, by 3000 BC, just using the wheel like everyone else. The spoked wheel was an innovation of about 2000 BC, made, it would appear, not by the "Indo-Europeans" but more specifically by the early Indo-Iranians. This invention literally propelled the Indo-Iranians all over Central Asia and adjacient regions, and it wasn't, of course, long before the powers-that-be in the Near East noticed the technology and wanted to adopt it. --dab (𒁳) 18:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I get it. Would you be so nice as to point me to some dead-tree reference so that I may increase my acquaintance with this topic of early carts and chariots? Thanks in advance, Louie (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire

I don't think it's got a lot to do with nationalist ideology. The whole problem is User:Ottava Rima (remember him from January?) and his problem with me. --Folantin (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

oh man. As if this article didn't have enough problems already. This fellow was bad enough when he tried to argue his core subject of "literature of all types", and I can hardly wait to see what he can do here. As far as I can see he is trying to defend the insalvageable mess left by years of Persian nationalists editing the article to include anything remotely "Persian". Apparently without any indication that he is aware of what he is doing, of course. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what we've been trying to do is to repace it with either a disambiguation page or a short article explaining the concept "Persian Empire" with links to the relevant articles (Achaemenids, Sassanids etc.) - roughly on the model of the Bulgarian Empire page. What we don't want is a content fork of most of the History of Iran which gives the impression that the "Persian Empire" was some kind of more or less continuous entity since 8th century BC. Which is basically what the protected version does (with plenty of factual inaccuracies thrown in besides). --Folantin (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as an example of Ottava's understanding of this topic, here are some of his statements:"The Persian Empire was the series of dynasties following 600 AD." Again: "The "Persian Empire" refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." And when did the "Ottoman conquest" occur? In 1800 AD apparently: "Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD." He's also never heard of Encyclopaedia Iranica. Nevertheless, he still sees fit to pronounce that it is "not a reliable source." --Folantin (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

well, it seems he is more or less feeding the Persian Empire article back to you. This is what happens when you believe what you read on Misplaced Pages :o) Except for confusing AD and BC, and making up stuff about the Ottomans, I suppose. I have no idea. But experience has shown that this user cannot be reasoned with, what with his being far too 'educated' to be asked to bother with puny 'facts'. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly been misled by Misplaced Pages but I'm not sure we can blame it for him making statements like " pre-Persian Empire empires, not the dynasties that made up the Persian Empire. Please get your terms correct." And: "The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that?" How indeed. --Folantin (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

sheesh. I think we didn't count our blessings when we were discussing things like Ottava Rima with him, topics on which he at least appeared to have some sort of mental grasp. --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. One final gem: "The pre-Islamic Republics were heavily influenced by the language فارسی , which is not 'Iranian'." I'm still trying to figure that one out. (BTW He berated other users for "not knowing Farsi" before finally admitting he couldn't read it himself.) --Folantin (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

lol. I am beginning to appreciate OR as comic relief in the "Persian" wikidrama. Bad editors are bad, but only a few master the art of being so bad they are really great (Dr Boubouleix was such a case). --dab (𒁳) 12:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember "vandalising" the Battle of Baghdad page by removing 140K of "quality material" supplied by Geir Smith. OR's ideas about Iranian history aren't even the craziest to have appeared on Misplaced Pages in recent months. You should enjoy the conspiracist contributions of User:ShapurIII, an editor who believes Alexander the Great was in fact an Iranian : "The evidence against continues! The lying storytellers who were illiterate and knew nothing about geography created Alexander in order to inflate the importance of an insignificant and indigent people of Greece. The Alexander historians who were a bunch of illiterate liars who didn't know geography created the myth of Alexander with all those mistakes, not knowing that 2000 years later Anush Ravid would reveal the untruth. They defeated and toppled by their Alexander all the countries and peoples who they had heard of in those days, they told much hype and lies which is easily recognizable and whoever that doesn't understand it is a real fool." (I'm just making a wild guess here - maybe User:ShapurIII and Anush Ravid are somehow connected, hmm?) Bonus rant: . --Folantin (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, but by now I find the nationalist kids not so interesting. They are too predictable. After a few thousand iterations of "the ancient glories of Armenia/Persia/Bharat/$MY_NATION, cradle of civilization", it becomes boring. What I realy enjoy are the true eccentrics with no obvious agenda, and OR seems to qualify for that category, at least as a junior member. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no agenda, as opposed to a group of people who dominate the fringe noticeboard in order to ensure the pushing of some of the worse POV out there with no respect for verifiability or consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair cop -- Folantin and I have conspired to hush up the 1800 Ottoman conquest of Persia, against all, ahem, verifiability. --dab (𒁳) 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Watch out. He's spotted the "cabal". Editors with a previous interest in Iranian history working on Persian Empire. What are the chances of that happening? --Folantin (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

you, sir, are a single-topic-editor and an anti-Türkic editor with an agenda of belittling the great Ottoman history of Iran, while at the same time trying to argue for "Persians" before 600 AD, and indeed for 600 BC. This is ridiculous, and against all verifiability or consensus. --dab (𒁳) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, Dbachmann tried to back you up when you went wild at Ariosto. You have worked with him on many, many pages. I even put up the wiki contrib tool to show that. Don't pretend as if it doesn't happen, as you two troll the Fringe noticeboard just to push fringe issues. And Dbachmann, I never said anything about hushing up Ottoman conquest, so way to go. Then you claim as if I called her a single topic editor. Really? I said that she pushes fringe POV everywhere. That is more than just the topic - see how she tried to remove that Orlando Furioso is a Christian Epic even though it was pointed out that hundreds of books on criticism determine it as such. More making stuff up. Is there any possibility for you not to just make up things? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's this mysterious "she" you keep going on about? --Folantin (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

my dear man, perhaps we should to take this delightful conversation to another venue so we will not be constrained by Misplaced Pages's endearing policies of "CIVIL" or "NPA". I am sure we would all very much express what is on our minds without such restraints. Not that you seem to be too embarassed to give yourself free rein. But really, dear, on Misplaced Pages, we should discuss content. As you say yourself, "verifiability". So, if you please, why do you not do us a favour and sprinkle your wisdom with some of its sources. No doubt you have excellent authorities for your claims about the "Persian Empire" of 600 to 1800 AD, but the trick would be to share them. --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how you have a flagrant disregard for meat puppetry rules, NPOV, OR, V, or most of our other principles that make up Misplaced Pages, feel free to be incivil here. Oh wait, you already have made it clear. You have gone around and destroyed dozen of pages for some unknown reason. Do you think it is fun to do so? Is Misplaced Pages just some kind of game? Do you do it simply because of people like Folantin are your "friends" so you feel the need to back them up no matter how embarrasingly wrong they are? You have always been a major problem here and there are plenty of people that recognize that. And I already shared plenty of sources, so your game above is just more of your dodging. You treat this as some kind of game, as if it is some kind of joke. Your behavior is disgusting. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am shamed. how disgusting, how could I destroy dozens of pages. No, wait. I am not, because I haven't. Because, as in the case of the Ottoman conquest of Persia, you have neglected one little thing: Reality. As in, provide the diff. --dab (𒁳) 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs for what? You make up an argument that has nothing to do with the topic or anything I've said, and then demand diffs? There is a term for someone that makes such ridiculous claims as that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you come to my talkpage and inform me, I quote, "You have gone around and destroyed dozen of pages". Of course you cannot be expected to provide a diff or two illustrating this scandal. Nor, I suppose, can you be expected to remember the stuff you said more than a hundred minutes ago. Thus, asking for diffs for what you claimed at 20:40 will, at 22:08 not necessarily ring a bell with you, so understandably you will complain that the request "has nothing to do with the topic or anything I've said". Oh dear. And now you're going to be expected to relate to what you said at 22:08. I do sympathize with you, it can be annoying to have people keep assuming you are a genius or something. Relax and do what you do best, is what I say. Maybe go to Folantin's page again and tell him how you feel about him, so he doesn't forget about you. --dab (𒁳) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need a lesson in grammar. Your statement above says that I need diffs about the Ottoman Empire. If you want to ask for diffs about you destroying pages, then ask about it. However, all I would have to do is link to your contribution summary. I don't think you've laid off harming Misplaced Pages for more than a week, if even that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoken like a true encyclopedist. I suppose that 'all you have to do' to back up any of your claims is point us to the Library of Congress, eh. I would be delighted to sit at your lotus feet and be instructed in the art of English grammar, and I meekly confess that my poor attempts at expressing myself are pathetic in comparison to grammatical gems such as "destroyed dozen of pages" or "diffs about you destroying pages" or "because of people like Folantin are your friends" or "plenty of people that recognize that". Ah, the language of Shakespeare... spoken by so many but mastered by so few ... oh, my boys, my boys... We’re at the end of an age. We live in a land of weather forecasts and breakfasts that set in; shat on by Tories, shovelled up by Labour. And here we are, we three... perhaps the last island of beauty in the world

Now, which of you is going to be a splendid fellow and go down to the Rolls for the rest of the wine? --dab (𒁳) 22:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"any of your claims is point us to the Library of Congress, eh" and yet here I am - I posted many references on the Persian Empire page which proved both you and Folantin wrong, and then I pointed out how easy it was to see how many times your edits match up, how you two tag team on multiple pages, and how you ignorantly followed her to Ariosto to cause disruptions while ignoring the academic consensus. Oh, but yes, -I- am the one not providing evidence. The thing is, -you- haven't provided evidence or -any- contribution to this encyclopedia that couldn't be seen as destructive. You try to hide by pointing the finger, adding snide comments, and the rest. But really, you haven't defended yourself at all. That just proves that you can't defend yourself, because you know that you are a major disruption. Oh, I love how you try to point out grammar. Oh no, a missed plural. But then your second example isn't even grammatically incorrect, nor is the third, or even the fourth. But I wouldn't expect someone who can't even introduce subjects to their sentences or claim that an object of a thought is found four sentences prior even though multiple new subjects were introduced. Do you care? No, because you are squirming and doing whatever you can to wriggle out of the fact that everyone knows that you are here to destroy the place and don't even have a defense. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

if you can make out how 'because of he is your friend' is a grammatical sentence, you are a better man than myself. --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you understood the English language you would see a difference between something that is not grammatically proper and a hypercorrection, which is over correct. Adding "of" after because is grammatically necessary but dropped in most instances. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

not quite, but nice try. It has something to do with prepositions and finite verbs, and with the difference between conj. and adv. if you'd like another go. I am sure you can do this, this, unlike Italian or Persian history, is something you studied, remember? --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Prepositions and finite verbs you say? See, that just proves that you don't understand grammar, as you are now misapplying terms. I said "because of he is your friend". "because" isn't part of multiple parts of speech. "of" isn't part of multiple parts of speech. Now, if you would have tried to claim that the difference was in using a pronoun vs using a possessive pronoun, then sure (as "because of his" is seen as acceptable either way). But you didn't. Why? Because you just don't know grammatical rules. Of course, someone whose sentences are "not quite, but nice try" .... well.... it only makes sense. By the way, when using a "because" phrase, it is always followed by some sort of noun or pronoun to be proper. Next time, remember that so you don't look as foolish. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

yes dear. Now please take a copy of OED and carefully check entries "A." and "B.". Try to assign your sentence to either A or B. Bonus assignment, check out Chaucer's usage and then write an essay on how Chaucer didn't understand grammar. --dab (𒁳) 17:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only did you respond to everything but what was said above, you tried to posit Chaucer, who was a poet, wrote in Middle English, and predated many of the grammatical rules, as if he was something that mattered. Wow, you really know how to keep digging. You do know that the center of the earth is rather hot, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets analyze some of the filth, the deception, and some of the pure fabrications in Dbachmann's history. How about this purely disgusting one: "so, it seems no coincidence that Coleridge is both seen as the originator (although according to Folantin he isn't, really) of the terminology "romantic epic" applied to Ariosto as used by Folantin" And yet he only says "romantic". Is the term "romantic epic" used? No. Are the quotes even using the word "epic" in them? But according to you, they are. Funny how you make up a word out of -nothing- in order to fabricate some kind of evidence. Then this wonderful followup - "it was also the 18th to 19th century "Romantics" who made "romance" a term relating to "fantastic/heroic quest literature":" It is just -wonderful- how you thing "romantic" is the same word as "romance". Lets forget that they are used in completely different ways and have completely different connotations! But since you are just making things up, that doesn't matter, right? Then you say "note how Ariosto comes up right at the top in the proper seach for "romantic epic" on google books." And yet Google books doesn't have it. It didn't have such then, nor now. Sure, Spenser comes up, but only as a subtitle and not in legitimately recognized criticism. Does Ariosto? Only in regards to Barbara Reynolds, a lecturer and not a full time professor who created a crappy translation and has since been replaced by three others that are actually correct in their translation. This beauty even makes it clear that Southey was the one to really create "Romantic Epic" as it matches the term. Southey doesn't seem like a pre-19th century Italian. Well, maybe in your version of reality he is. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Once more, why are you referring to me as "she"? I'm sure I've told you several times I'm not (most recently here ). In the words of a great man: "If you can't even get my gender correct, how can you expect people to think that you have any ability to read or be informed on any topic?" . We've already been through your obsession about there being some deep difference between "romantic epic" and "romance epic" when applied to Ariosto. You were even invited to change the page to say "romance epic", an invitation you declined for some unknown reason. Plus, I'm not sure I trust the expertise of somebody who describes Malory's Le Morte d'Arthure as a work of "Renaissance prose". --Folantin (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: "Southey doesn't seem like a pre-19th century Italian." No, but Torquato Tasso does. Had you searched a bit further in the volume you were quoting, you would have found this : " loved Tasso's Romantic epic Jerusalem Delivered (1581)".--Folantin (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"why are you referring to me as "she"?" Because when we first met you had some userbox talking about child rearing of some sort. You've never established your sex one way or the other, and there has been many questions. Hell, even an ArbCom discussion claimed that asking your sex was inappropriate. So, if you are going to play gender neutral or have such absurdities, you cannot cry about it later. Unlike you, I actually make my gender known, along with my real name. And please, if you want to say that Ariosto and Tasso are the same person, I think you should check yourself into a psychiatric ward because you cannot distinguish between completely separate entities. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly it seems your comprehension skills have failed you once again. "Unlike you, I actually make my gender known, along with my real name." Ottava Rima is a most unusual name. Do you have a sibling called Terza? I've only ever met one person named after a verse form before, Petroc N. Sonnet, who was Professor of Cimmerian Studies at the University of East Truro. --Folantin (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, my email is my professional email and my name has been mentioned quite often here and on sites related to Misplaced Pages. My real name has been connected to this account since day one, as with my jobs and a lot of my real life information. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Um yeah, but I don't have the slightest desire to e-mail you for fear of getting involved in another endless Pythonesque conversation. On-Wiki is bad enough. So your identity remains a mystery to me. --Folantin (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, you need to understand that in Ottava's world, "my identity is publicly known" is just another claim, just like "my English is hypercorrect", or "you are vandalising" or "the Ottomans invaded Persia" or "I have shown you the references" -- she never said that any of her claims were true now, did she. Or if she did, well, that would just be another claim, wouldn't it. In Ottava's magical world, "truth" is a pronoun, and it's the first singular one, too. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just another claim? Do I need to parade in people? Hell, the ArbCom knows my name, most of the WMF, many of the Stewards, and quite a bit of other well known people. Even your pal Moreschi knows my name. I love how you claim that now I call "truth" a pronoun, when the only time it was used was to refer to "he" and "his". Perhaps your above post is an attempt at an insanity plea. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not "need" to do anything. Except perhaps look into a mirror some time. You also do not "need" to prance around about your precious name on this page. People are free to withhold their name. If they want to reveal it, they can put in on their userpage, as I do, and be done. If not, peace to then, but then they perhaps should not pester others about not revealing their names. I think we are done here, and I am calling it a day. Try to find somebody else you can pester for a while. --dab (𒁳) 19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If by "pestering" you mean pointing out that you go around with Folantin and others to push some of the most absurd claims, violate multiple guidelines and policies, and have a flagrant disregard for Misplaced Pages, then I am sure that just about anyone with an ounce of integrity and a bit of respect for this site pester you. So, why are you still here? Hoping that everyone who cares will just leave because they are tired of people like you not leaving first? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, why are you still here? How about you make good on your constant threats to have me and others banned and expose this foul conspiracy? --Folantin (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, how curious - checking from the history, you two are sure alternating back and forth. An interesting thing, especially when someone claims there isn't a "conspiracy". By the way, conspiracies are secret. Your actions show an audacity so great that you didn't even bother to hide the fact that you actively work in this manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have known people in real life who couldn't back down when they were wrong. It's fun to watch on Misplaced Pages, but in real life, these are personal tragedies. When a simple "oops, you have a point, let me restate that" would put things back on track and even win sympathy, they simply cannot bring themseleves to say it, instead retreating into ever more pathetic constructs built to uphold appearances of "I am right all the time and you are all wrong". This loses them all sympathy, which in turn only reinforces their conviction that they are surrounded by malice. Of course they are also terrible in relationships. At the origin of this phenomenon is a deficient theory of mind. Everyone is a little jerk at the age of four, because hey, you are the center of the universe. Then we are socialized, and come to assume that others are at the center of their univeses, and learn to make allowance for this, expecting them to make the same allowance for us. Then, during teenage we learn, very painfully, that we are really exocentric, and that we can only be whole if we bear ourselves with both self-esteem and humility. But some people do not make this transition, and they take their toddler solipsism into adulthood, very much to their own grief, but also to the significant annoyance of their environment. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"I have known people in real life" Yes, which is obvious since you know yourself. Briefly looking at your contribs, you are involved in over a dozen POV pushing incidents in which you look absolutely ridiculous - that is just in the last 150 contribs. Take this one, where you feel the need to put Europe between two sets of Asia. Is that alphabetical? No. Does it follow the listing in the previous section? No. Is there any reason for it? No. You are just edit warring because you enjoy disrupting. You do this a lot. It will be a good day when you are banned once and for all. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

be my guest and lecture me on another dozen fields on which you do not have the first clue, Ottava. I am sure Misplaced Pages will be so much better of if your idea of "knowledge" prevails. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You can claim I lack a clue, but here is the thing - if you were "right", then you would have moved the placement of the previous use of European to match. You didn't. Hell, you don't even have a legitimate reason. They weren't organized according to "time" or to any kind of "percentage". They were simply listed in order and grouped by region. If you honestly think your "ordering" makes sense, then, well, there is a major problem with your ability to process patterns and your ability to have some kind of structural uniformity. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dinkytown

Although I don't have any strong views one way or the other about the section Dinkytown (talk · contribs) disputes in EGE. I see that they are acting intemperately and not waiting for responses. I am afraid this is behaviour which, if continued, will probably lead to a block. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, this user is misbehaing. But I am staying out of it until I get a chance to rewrite that section. It is true that it had been tagged for too long. It's not as terrible as the tags make out, but it should be improved. Of course, people now waste time edit-warring over the fixed version instead of sitting down and between them carve out an improvement, as in, like, the basic idea of Misplaced Pages. It is easy to break such a deadlock by investing half an hour of work and fixig the problems with the piece in question. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dab. I did a little research on the section under discussion and put up a few possibly useful sources with relevant quotes on the talk page. If I can help at all with your rewrite, let me know. —Aryaman (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yalens mentioned Mein Kampf on the talk page. Dinkytown has subsquently made a complaint on WP:ANI about Slr and me. You might wish to comment, since I have mentioned you. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dab. I did a rough rewrite of the section under dispute and posted it on the EGE talk page. Of course, it will need work, but it has enough quality references to end the bickering and remove the tags. I'll hold off on changing the article until I hear back from a few other involved editors. Thanks, —Aryaman (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Géza von Neményi

Géza von Neményi currently redirects to Heidnische Gemeinschaft. While he did found this community, he is no longer a member and is more well-known as the self-proclaimed "Allsherjargode" of German heathens and as the current "Hochwart" of the Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft. In lieu of an article on Neményi himself, could we have Géza von Neményi redirect to Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft? Thanks. —Aryaman (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

sounds reasonable, but why don't you do it yourself? Fwiiw, I do not think von Neményi meets WP:BIO, it is already stretching WP:ORG to keep a standalone article on his group. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have done it myself, but I'm simply ignorant when it comes to the 'how' part. Sorry to bother you with this. :/ —Aryaman (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Suspition of Sock Puppetry at Wayne Herschel

I am starting to get suspitious that somebody is doing sock puppetry at Wayne Herschel in order to protect the page from possible deletion. A pair of brand new accounts opened up by coming to Mr. Herschel's defense and neither have any other contribs. Both however write with almost precisely the same style. How would I go about looking into this?Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PROD removed from Supervan

I have removed the dated PROD tag from Supervan because the proposed deletion process applies only to articles, not to redirects. Redirects may be discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion. Cnilep (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed your well-founded concern with this prod. --dab (𒁳) 17:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This headline suggests that Sarel van der Merwe's fans refer to him as "Supervan". You are, of course, free to Ignore All Rules, but I am once again removing your PROD. Take it to AfD, if you please. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

you are not getting my point. You are coming to my talkpage twice about some technical point of red tape. This time you could have invested in fixing this case. My view is, either contribute to a solution or leave it alone. By "fixing" I mean something like this. You could have done this in one minute, silently, without even notifying me. Instead, you spend that time outing yourself as an adherent of wikibureaucracy who likes to fill talkpages with "conflicts" and "rules" instead of just doing one very simple edit that improves the pedia. Sigh, man. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful edits; they are even better than my own. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

-omics

I don't know what should be done with these suffix articles, but perhaps you do. -omics looks like it might get deleted although the scope of the page seems larger than that of the corresponding page on Wiktionary. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, is there another razzia against suffixes underway? I know these articles need expertise and good judgement, not all of them can be kept. Unfortunately, these are qualities very rare among the editors out to 'clean up Misplaced Pages' according to the letter of some guideline.

I emphatically insist that all articles deserve to be considered on their own merits. Any approach of "transwiki all suffix articles" is a non-starter. Anyone wishing to transwiki suffix articles will need to seek for informed consensus for each article individually. Now in the case of the -omics article this may or may not be arguable, we'll need to look into it. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism and Modern people

If it is nationalism, why is Chinese history from 3rd millennium BC? Hopefully I get a good answer from you dab, because I heard from you that no "modern people" exist from half of 2nd millennium BC, or even earlier, which is the case in Chinese. I think that is nationalism too for sure about Chinese (modern people still today) 5000 year history. Soukrot (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont you think Chinese history is a little far being 5000 years as Misplaced Pages says, and just about any Encyclopedia I open I see that? I thought you were the main "nationalism" handler here? Soukrot (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking me about Chinese history? Neither you nor I have edited any China-related articles recently. Please use WP:RD if you have any questions about China. Fwiiw, our "history of $COUNTRY" articles usually do include a section on prehistory. Also, please tell me you're not from Richmond, TX. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Im mentioning this because you are the one that is against "nationalism", and you have mentioned sometime in like a Mitanni page, where "no modern people existed from that time", yet we have Chinese history, "1000" years before that 2nd millennium BC, as a "modern people still living and breathing in this time", can i make myself more clear? I think you know exactly what Im talking about here. Chinese history is the "CORE" of that Nationalism you keep ranting and raving about. Wake up to this news hah. Soukrot (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And no Im not frim TX, but do I need to tell you where Im from? Soukrot (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

why do you insist on picking my talkpage to rant about the Chinese history article? Go to Talk:History of China. In fact please edit any article except for topics of interest to Armenian nationalists, because you seem to have a WP:COI in that field. It isn't inconceivable that when I have time and when I'm in the mood, I might go and contribute to that article, but I will not do so at the moment, so it is futile for you to complain to me about this article. Happy editing. --dab (𒁳) 17:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont you take this seriously. If you did? You would have committed a while ago of correcting the Chinese history stretching to 5000 years hah. Sometime "so funny" to my and others opinion.

You are the "nationalism" handler guy or something close that name. I think I was pretty clear of mentioned modern Chinese people's history 5000 years. If you agree with that, I think we need to consider of other peoples history as well, since there is evidences of those other modern peoples as well, like in the case of Armenians or Assyrians which you also edit those modern peoples pages. Soukrot (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

bye now! --dab (𒁳) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mm. Which ancient-history loving sockpuppeteer is this again? There are so many, I've lost track. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a sock of one of the Armenian kids. It's futile to keep track of how many of them we have, since they communicate via fora anyway, so they are basically a single editor, and a disruptive one at that. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the answer: Soukrot is a sock of the banned user Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 05:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for dealing with it. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Grandmaster 09:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please check the recent edits of Ararat arev socks to Mount Ararat? I'm not sure that they helped improve the article. Grandmaster 10:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Title Namimg

I noticed you mentioned the naming of Mitrovica on the talk page, could you please give your opinion at Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica#Mitrovica? Regards IJA (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I already have. It remains the same. Why should I reiterate my position every two months? --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

...because I've brought to light new arguments IJA (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of L/L Reasearch

The article L/L Reasearch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unlikely typo

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Verbal chat 07:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

sure. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottie

ANI

Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

as I say, wikidrama. Why don't you find some topic about which you have some idea, and try to work on the article about that. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, in case you wondered. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that since this started on August 21, I have had one DYK go through, 9 nominated, 9 more being prepped for DYK, an FA pass along with 3 others being listed at FAC, and multiple GAs being reviewed. What have -you- done these past ten days? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ah yes, ze Wikicup. While you were playing social games, it would appear that I have focussed on building an encyclopedia. Seriously? This isn't a pissing contest. Go back to writing articles about stuff you know, respecting evidence challenging your edits when it is shown to you, and I don't have an issue with you. Otoh, continue playing the prick for the sake of it and I will keep denouncing you for it. The concept is also known as karma, or in your case, works. You do not have to take my word on this, as I expect you won't. It is rather kind of a social natural law, its existence independent of whether I or anyone else tells you about it. Keep up your pettiness and insincerity, and it will always come back to haunt you. Show good grace and integrity, and it will also always come back to gratify you. --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Social games? I have actually built far more of this encyclopedia since January than you have your whole career here. The only one "playing" anything is you, and it is tiring and boring. Ever notice why you have so few allies in this one? Because most people really know that you have gone so out of bounds on this that no one is willing to stick up for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"I have actually built far more of this encyclopedia since January than you have your whole career here." Oh dear.--Folantin (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that I have had over 130 DYK, over 20 GA, and over 5 FA since that time period, right? And my barnstar collection is far higher in a much shorter time. Half of these are from me. Funny how that works out. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ever notice why you have so few allies in this one?" "And my barnstar collection is far higher in a much shorter time." In other words, my cabal is bigger than your cabal. --Folantin (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a cabal. You have four or five people that loosely help each other out of some mistaken idea that you are right. You have POV pushed on hundreds of articles and caused endless edit war. Do I have a cabal? No, I just happen to have put in major article writing with many, many arbitrators, bureaucrats, admin, and other high profile users. See, my content work here has been high profile and quality. Your article work here has been petty and based on fighting with people. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"No, I just happen to have put in major article writing with many, many arbitrators, bureaucrats, admin, and other high profile users." In other words, "I've done a hell of a lot of schmoozing which should give me carte blanche to behave however I like on Misplaced Pages." And so modest too. --Folantin (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Schmoozing? No, I wouldn't call any of it schmoozing. Its called actually writing content and putting in word. Perhaps you should try it instead of constantly attacking people and waging war. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't its content labelling system. The hard part is keeping trouble spots clean of bad faith users with an agenda, as I have been doing with you. DYK is a nice gimmick, but spamming DYK is hardly an encyclopedic achievement. The real work is done where trolls try to break articles with phony claims and epic bursts of wikilawyering. Your edit history is by now full of precisely such actions. It will be very easy to compile a large collection of incredibly dumb, incredibly wrong, and incredibly vicious edits of yours. But to do that, somebody wouuld need to be sufficiently interested in your antics to spend more time with it than necessary. Just keep in mind that Misplaced Pages never forgets, and while you may be used to claiming one thing and then another, on Misplaced Pages such tactics come back to haunt you. I would actually respect you for your work on English poems, if you did not pretend that the decent job you do there makes you some kind of super-Wikipedian and took it as an excuse to be a complete and utter WP:DICK all over the project.

sheesh, Ottava, so you have lost face. Try to deal with it, and try to learn from it, and perhaps next time it becomes clear you have no case whatsoever you will remember to back down before it's too late. You may also try to remember that you are a sinner, if that's what does it for you, just try to keep your cycle of sinning and repenting from disrupting Misplaced Pages next time. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say I lost face when the only people agreeing with you are the same people who agreed with you before, whereas every day more people come and reinforce what I have said. Furthermore, Characters of Shakespear's Plays went to DYK at 40k. Spam? No. The Conversation poems pages all went to DYK - (Dejection: An Ode, Fears in Solitude, Frost at Midnight, Reflections on Having Left a Place of Retirement, The Eolian Harp, The Nightingale: A Conversation Poem, This Lime-Tree Bower My Prison, To William Wordsworth). All highly sourced and all in decent shape. Spam? No. Samuel Coleridge's early life went to DYK with little changes from that state. Spam? No. And poetry articles? No, I work on religion articles, law articles, history articles, and the rest also. I also am heavily involved in copyright and plagiarism concerns, and spend a lot of time correcting sourcing issues at FAC of -all- types of pages. You can claim what you want about me, but no one but your tiny group would ever bother to claim it is true. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Armenians

We can have photos of historical Armenian figures. It's not your place to say we can't. Show me where in the Misplaced Pages guidelines it says otherwise. Serouj (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please protect the Armenians article from non-registered users. They keep on changing the population numbers. Thanks. Serouj (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why you think that the first national church shouldn't be included in the Christianity page. I don't believe it to be a claim when it is cited in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History – Page 268 by Cambridge University Press, Gale Group, C.W. Dugmore? Thanks! Nareg510 (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Torchrunner

Dab, not sure if you are still monitoring the situation with Torchrunner (talk · contribs). He recently made a new edit to the Lorber article with a really inappropriate reference. I reverted and made some comments on his user talk page. However, it now seems to me that my comments are just repeating what has been said over and over again, especially by you. Any suggestions? Singularity42 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

A user has been leaving me messages (User talk:Rjanag#About new accounts) asking me to "autoconfirm" him so he can edit war on some pages that you semi-protected. Just thought I should give you an FYI about this. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of autostereotypes by nation

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of autostereotypes by nation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of autostereotypes by nation (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikipeditor (talk) 2009-09-10

Removal of PROD from Bothati

Hello Dbachmann, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Bothati has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(add sources and contest prod - easily substantiated with a Google Books search)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Aryan

• 12:33, 20 February 2008 Dbachmann protected Aryan (assorted sock attacks )

I've started a review on the talk page of that article to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. See talk:Aryan. --TS 06:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lebor Feasa Runda

In case you aren't watching Talk:Druid... You wrote, «I don't know what translation software would come up with beträchtlich ("considerable") for vast...». WorldLingo does, for one. It translates the entire sentence fragment exactly as shown with all the errors, word-for-word. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

interesting. The vast=beträchtlich must be a simple error in their dictionary. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, as "1X2Willows" pointed out on alt.religion.druid, it's a matter of context: for "won a vast amount of money", beträchtlich would work; just not for "a vast emptiness". Computer translations are notoriously insensitive to context, so they make the same sort of errors a human might make translating only word-by-word from a dictionary, paying no attention to shades of meaning in either language. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

that's not exactly true, unless you want to tune your translation to account for an Anglo-Saxon tendency for exaggeration. The translation would work, but it isn't exact. "Eine beträchtliche Summe" would be "a considerable amount of money", not "a vast amount". But I assume you are right that the database entry for "vast" probably originates in such fiscal contexts. --dab (𒁳) 06:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Akins's story has changed, to assert that he posted a computer translation from English to German in order to keep the original German text confidential! (My reply notes that's not what he'd claimed.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And now he claims the text was "revealed by the gods"! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that we have reduced this author to a blubbering heap. The power of freely available encyclopedic information. In the 1980s, or even in the 1990s among the pathologically credulous, he could have pulled this off for years. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

James Frankcom (talk · contribs)

is a problem. See my comments here and here . Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I am willing to take this. I am getting a bit tired of the "Near Eastern" (Balkans/Armenian/Persian/Hindu) brand of nationalism, and it may be well to remember that this kind of attitude isn't quite extinct in Western Europe, too. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates

Thank you for adding coordinates to articles on Misplaced Pages, but please note that the Coor * family of templates are deprecated; use {{Coord}} instead. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I keep forgetting the syntax. I sort of expect the bots to clean up after me. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Protoarmenian culture

You had written: "the Turkish authorities spare neither strength nor resources to clear off any track of ancient proto Armenian culture..." Hi, can you list here the facts of this clearing off? It is very interesting! I need these facts for my research. Thanks in advance for your kind assistance! --Zara-arush (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have written this where? --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

221.132.118.5 (talk · contribs)

It insists on adding disproportional content (inappropriately taken from Islam in Iran) to History of Iran. It's better to semi-protect the page for while. Alefbe (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy is just copying and pasting a slew of material from Islam in Iran. He keeps re-adding it. The guy needs blocking. He's already violated 3RR. If he makes one more revert I'll report him to the noticeboard. --Folantin (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Pakistani IP 221.132.118.5 (talk · contribs) who keeps messing with the History of Iran article really needs stopping now. He's just readded the same incompetent copy-and-paste material for the umpteenth time. --Folantin (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Rigvedic geography.jpg

The map of Rigvedic geography mis-spells 'Cemetery H' in RED! Please correct this.98.248.117.239 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for pointing this out. --dab (𒁳) 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ararat Arev Redux

You might be interested in this . The "long term abuser" who has just been unbanned is apparently yet another sock of Ararat Arev. . The unblocker is User:Fred Bauder. --Folantin (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Fred Bauder has posted his off-wiki conversation with "Nareg" on his talk page . I thought I'd let you have first say about this since you've had the most dealings with AA. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated update: Future Perfect has just reblocked this latest incarnation of the Sun of Ararat. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just having another futile "debate" with an Armenian nationalist, Andranikpasha (talk · contribs). Am I wasting time over yet another Aa sock or is this one genuine? It is getting hard to tell. From the point of view of WP:DUCK, these accounts are all the same, but then of course Aa isn't the only Armenian nationalist crackpot on the internet. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a while since I've looked at Armenian stuff in much detail. Due to time limitations I'm almost entirely focussed on Iranian articles at the moment (and you know how that panned out without the input of a single ultra-nationalist POV-pusher!). But IIRC Andranikpasha is a completely different user from AA. AA's latest incarnations have been obsessed with Mount Ararat (as ever) and existentialist philosophy (Sartre, Heidegger). A pretty unusual combination of interests.--Folantin (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

it is true, Andranikpasha is several levels above what Aa is capable of doing (basically shouting "ancient sources, Ararat cradle of civilization" over and over again). Andranikpasha appears to have the erudition of presenting a google books link and ask me to see what "the academic people are saying". Which, while several levels above Aa, I am afraid is still several levels below what would be required of a constructive or useful contribution. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to search my memory more to see if I've ever come across this guy. Shame Moreschi isn't around any more - he knew pretty much all the Armenian and Azeri editors. I see the dispute is over Hayasa-Azzi. I really hate having to deal with that area of history (plus Urartu etc.) on Misplaced Pages because it's too damn vague it attracts all kinds of speculation, plausible or otherwise.--Folantin (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Check your email

I could use your advice. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Working on recreating “Race and crime”.

I’m posting this comment on the discussion pages of several users who were involved in the article Race and crime before it was merged into Anthropological criminology, to let all of you know that I’m working on recreating the Race and crime article. My current draft for it can be found here. I would appreciate help from any of you with two things related to this:

1: RegentsPark, the admin who protected the redirect from Race and crime to Anthropological criminology, has suggested that the statistical information in this article should be better-integrated into the portion of it that discusses how these statistics can be interpreted. I would appreciate help with improving this aspect of the article, or any other aspects of it that you think could be improved.

2: RegentsPark has let me know here that he won’t be willing to unprotect the article himself, no matter how much it’s improved, so if I would like it to be unprotected I should propose this at WP:RFPP. I’ve proposed there that it be unprotected, but the admin who responded (User:Camaron) stated that without RegentsPark’s approval, I would need to first obtain a consensus that the article should be recreated. If you think the article does not require any additional improvements, and is good enough to be recreated in its current state, I would appreciate you making your opinion about this known on the draft’s discussion page, so that we can begin to create a consensus for this.

Thanks in advance. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for playing by the rules. My position remains that this is potentially an article we can carry, especially under WP:NOTCENSORED (if we do not tolerate religious hysteria at Muhammad, we will also not tolerate racial or PC hysteria at "Race and X" articles), but that a serious effort needs to be made by those working on it to address all reasonable objections, especcially regarding WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. As the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and crime was "keep and cleanup" I do not see how anyone has any business indef-protecting the redirect, and I will take it upon myself to unprotect as soon as I see a satisfactory attempt at cleaned up recreation.

now, your best bet will be to begin by creating a "Race and crime" section at Anthropological criminology, summarizing the gist of your sources, and then split off a WP:SS article from there. --dab (𒁳) 08:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the race/crime statistics have been added to the anthropological criminology article in the past, and were removed on the grounds that they aren’t relevant to it. (I actually brought up this idea myself on the Anthropological criminology discussion page in July, without realizing that it had been tried before.) I kind of agree with this decision, since anthropological criminology is based mostly on phrenology and has very little to do with race, although it makes me wonder why race and crime was merged into that article in the first place.

What RegentsPark suggested is that if I want this article recreated, I should create a draft for it in my userspace, and work there on both cleaning it up and building consensus to recreate it. That’s what I’ve been working on, but the cleanup process has been difficult because nobody other than me seems to care about this. Thus far I’ve contacted ten different users who’ve been involved in this article, but as you can see from the draft’s discussion page, the only people who have responded haven’t been willing to offer any help.

If you agree that Race and crime is an article that can be added back to Misplaced Pages, but that it ought to be cleaned up first, I would appreciate your help with improving it to the point where it can be recreated. I’ve been working on this for upwards of two months, and I’m nearing the limit of what I think it’s possible to do on my own. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

well, if I'm going to unprotect the page, I shouldn't be involved in writing the article, should I. And even apart from that point, I would not care to invest much time into collecting data on this, because frankly I am convinced that the result will be US-centric as no other country will likely have "race and crime" statistics. There is nothing wrong with this, but of course it will be made clear when we are not discussing "race" in general but specifically "race in the US".

I think RegentsPark is out there on a limb here, as it isn't at all usual to "protect until cleaned up". I don't want to wheel-war over this, but I will let him know how I see this and on what conditions I plan to invervene.

It is good to have a workpage on this, but I do not think we need to clean up the entire statistics thing before recreating the article. We can also recreate the article as a well-referenced stub just giving a rough outline of the topic. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The new article you've created is starting to have an issue that its previous version did. I've described this in more detail on the draft's discussion page. I think this problem needs your attention, because this is something that's been going on for more than a year, and it isn't likely to stop without the involvement of one of the admins. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

World language

Hi, I believe you are the creator of this wiki article. Someone has challenged the contents and arguments put out on this article, and also put up a notice asking for more sources. He or she also objects to the notion that Russian and Chinese are to be rightfully considered de facto world languages, although we have agreed that Hindi + Urdu may qualify under the category of "other supra-regional languages". Would you like to come in and address this issue, or add more sources to the article? Haleth (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit that the article's referencing leaves something to be desired. But of course you can also make a point of plastering an article with warning tags just because you don't like what it is saying. We should be pragmatic, compare de:Weltsprache and weltalmanach.de (published Fischer Verlag). Perhaps Weltsprache is a German term in origin, and "world language" is only an English calque. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't read German unfortunately, so I don't know what it says. I have however, found two books written by people that deals specifically on the subject: world languages. Exactly the same 9 languages were named in both sources: English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, German, Portuguese, and Dutch. From my perspective on the conversation taking place on our respective talk pages, I think this person is approaching the topic with some factually incorrect perceptions, is dead set in his or her opinion about some of the languages and may not budge even if I add in proper citations.

You should properly put in a more complete citation of where you got the characteristics of living world languages from, because that person is actually using some of these listed characteristics to dispute the contents of the article. Haleth (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

since we are rather despeate for good sources here, how about you identify the two books you mention? --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Improving the project

Hi. I've just come here to tell you that in the past (and hopefully in the future) I have always regarded you as an editor who is attempting to improve and protect the project. I would be hopeful and grateful that you assumed the same about my actions, and didn't subscribe to theories about nefarious motives or ownership issues on my part. I can assure you I have the goals of the project at heart, and though we may disagree I hope we can keep this on a personable rather than personal level, based on reasoned argument, discussion, and consensus forming. Discussion in this area has become rather heated, and I hope to avoid he subject for a short while. I hope that the adversarial tone can be dropped and that consensus can be found. The new article is a huge improvement over the old, but the inclusion of the table without contextualising information and other fringe theories still leave problems that need to be dealt with. And they are being dealt with, but we shouldn't dismiss these concerns outright. Verbal chat

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,