| Revision as of 03:53, 11 April 2007 editRudrasharman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,881 editsm →DRV: fx← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:23, 11 April 2007 edit undoDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{sprotected2}} | {{sprotected2}} | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| <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 |
<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 Mar 07 / : – 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| </div> | </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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==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) | |||
| ::Left a message on the discussion page of bodhidharm/martial arts. ] 21:37, 28 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) | |||
| :'s what I suspected, he's finding the "john" accounts for us... So much effort wasted, I wonder if he's at least using a script :) ] <small>]</small> 09:35, 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 (]; it is undisputable that the Vedas are older than both the Bible and the Quran, so why should the Muslims care if that age difference amounts to 1,000 years or to 10,000 gazillion fantastillion Vedic super-years??). 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) | |||
| :thank you Aksi, no harm done, I am beginning to enjoy the sock collecting. ] <small>]</small> 11:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == About an article == | |||
| Check out ]. Looks like it should be deleted. ] (]) 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If you don't mind me butting in, yes, it should be deleted. There's already a ] article. And to describe Mitanni as "Hindu" is misleading. What would be accurate to say is that there were Indo-Aryan gods in their pantheon. ] 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::it's patent nonsense. A speedy, if you ask me. ] <small>]</small> 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::If it's patent nonsense you're after, have a look at ]. It's exhaustively referenced - some real effort has gone into it. Some of the references are modern and reliable, some are downright quaint, and there's even a certain Dr J.L Kamboj, a name with a comforting air. The perils of autodidacticism. ] 08:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Regarding your msg== | |||
| Sie sind inkorrekt :) Das ist nicht party-line ballot-stuffing aber folgender ]--] 09:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am afraid that makes no sense whatsoever. ] <small>]</small> 10:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please don't throw away WP:AGF so easily. Neither am I.--] 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hindutva pseudoscience AfD == | |||
| I have closed the AfD as it was a redirect, not an article. - ] (]) 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I did argue it should be speedily closed, however a move is not a reason to close unless you think it should be closed anyway. {{tl|move}} discussions can be had in good faith on articles' talkpages. There was no debate, of course, since the afd was never in good faith to begin with. ] <small>]</small> 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I saw the reference on the 3RR page, but wasn't sure what it was about. Avery clever turn of a phrase, though: "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." What is the story? ] 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :are you inquiring after the lone Armenian sockmaster, or about the Grand Unified Hindutva Sock And Troll Circus? ] <small>]</small> 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Socks == | |||
| He guesses the passwords, he can't hack. ] 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps he's purchasing them from the person who created them (just guessing). That would be a pathetic thing to do though.--] 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not sure all he does is looks for obvious old accounts for example if it was Mars, the password would be Mars not sure if its right though but thats what he does I'm positive ;-) . ] 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tamil, Classical Language Issues== | |||
| Hi, I don't understand why you are removing a factual statement that Tamil is one of the ancient classical languages of the world. It is NOT hype. It has unique secular literature (virtually no mythology, simple verses and songs about love, philosophy (without religious, god-invoking varieties) and valour. More than 500 poets including several women have composed nearly 2000 songs belonging to 200 BCE 200CE. Of course subsequently between 500-800 CE almost 22,000 songs set to music, now on Gods Siva and Vishnu and other non-hindu epics like Cilappathikaram and other works. It is truly a unique body of literature and a language and I don't understand your objections. You say in your dictionary it is not a classical language unless it is a dead language. But why do you ignore the official declaration of the President of India and scholars like Prof. Hart. Is it fair? --] 05:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(dab, beg your pardon) Secular? Yeah right. On the one hand we have Tamil scholars crying hoarse that their literature was secular(cant see to what avail) and on the other hand we have Tamil epigraphers successfully and gleefully 'deciphering' the indus script to reveal the word 'Murugan'(...and there was light!!) - a 24 carat 'Tamil'... er.. ]. And then of course, we have Shiva himself(oh.. or is it Siva or did you say, seyyon) gracing the first ] in the ice age alongside wooly mammoths to adjudicate on the worthiness of the tamil works being peer reviewed. And then was it ](btw, was he a Tamil God or Sanskrit God?) who handed down the tamil grammar that ] eventually gave Tamil? huh. And oh btw, for all your crying hoarse, the President of India means nothing to wikipedia. He/she can have an article about himself/herself. But thats about it. Misplaced Pages doesnt follow the Indian constitution. Sorry. As for Hart, refer to my comments on that 'Classical languages' talk page. ] 06:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| For the record, I didn't delete the claim that Tamil was a "classical language". I just found the lead paragraph doesn't need to state that twice over. ] <small>]</small> 07:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question. == | |||
| Have a look at the contributions of these users: ], ], ]. There are one or two other accounts that have basically done nothing but build up ] as well as various other books from Voice of Dharma. Most of these are strongly non-notable. Do you suggest AfDing or merging and redirecting to the main author page? | |||
| ] 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm aware of the problem, and I don't think it's very grave. I don't think any ISBNd book titles should be Afd'd, I think they should be merged into their authors' article (if it exists), or into some other list article or similar dealing with their subject area. In the present case, these can all safely be merged into Elst's article. The category I would CfD, though, we can't have a "books by" category for every hack with ISBNs. There should be a ] article, however, and non-Elst publications can be merged there. No "Voice of Dharma" category will be necessary, it can just go into ]. ] <small>]</small> 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::any book and every book that anyone cares to register in the book trade has an ISBN, and there are several million of them a year in english alone. not all of them even get published. It is not a sign of distinction. The minimal sign used in some contexts is that major university libraries have a copy--if almost none do, then the book is almost certainly not notable. . The is a special relevance I've noticed in checking bios of traditional Buddhist scholars--many of their books are not entered into the usual western-oriented book trade and will not have isbns, which doesnt necessarily make them unimportant. ''']''' 03:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know, I know. It only goes to put into perspective that many pov-pushers we get do ''not even'' have an ISBN'd book to back up their thing (pre-1970s publications are of course a different issue). I am not saying every book entry should be kept, but I am saying, if somebody bothers to create an entry, make it a redirect somewhere if the book is unnotable, redirects are cheap. ] <small>]</small> 05:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Genetic Studies == | |||
| {{see|Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA)|Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia}} | |||
| I still think allowing genetic studies is a bad move. Obviously, the POV-pushers are looking to cherry-pick sound bites from the "conclusions" - they are never going to report the statistical facts instead, which would be too dry and too inscrutable anyway. But, the latter is all that's really admissible, because these are statistical studies, i.e. research papers, not summaries or reviews of the current "state of the field". That makes these papers ''primary sources'', as I tried to argue , and all the caveats on primary sources should apply. Further, the point about time frames is crucial, especially in the light of the "conclusions" these researchers are apparently reporting: the data pertain to one time frame (at least 10 kya or greater) but the soundbites are deliberately cast in more, ahem, "relevant" terms. See the various articles in , in particular , where some unsavory motivations come to light (it's about funding, after all). ] 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am fully aware of these problems. We have, after all, a main article, ] (which needs attention). We cannot just ignore these studies, and we should give a very brief summary of their gist, obviously noting their fundamental limitations, in ], there is nothing wrong with that. There are always scholars pimping their findings to the tastes of the people with the funds, that's hardly a problem particular to India... ] <small>]</small> 06:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: But the ''gist'' of these papers have nothing to do with IAM etc! Gene flow 10 kya or earlier is obviously irrelevant. The ''problem'' is that the papers state provocative conclusions, which are in fact not warranted by the data. Since the POV brigade wants to cite these papers only for these sound bites and not the facts, lacking a survey article to cite as a secondary source, there's no way to avoid OR if these papers are to be mentioned at all. IOW, the ''correct'' summary is "inconclusive due to insufficient resolution in time depth", but this is not (yet) a sourceable statement. An alternative would be to trawl through these papers and actually pull out the numbers and say something like "XYZ et al in their study find M, N, and O at time depths of T +/- 3000 years, and conclude..." where the juxtaposition of the actual numbers and the conclusions would expose the absurdity. But that's a lot of work, and the POV brigade won't stand for that either. I think the crux is to emphasize the primary source nature of these papers, so quoting their "conclusions" is simply not enough. ] 07:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would argue that it is somewhat relevant. You can never use these studies to ''prove'' either IAM or "out of India", but you could conceivably use them to ''disprove'' either. I know the pov brigade is only here for the soundbites. The gory details should be laid out in the ] articles. ''If'' some sort of consensus regarding genetic influx over the past 10 ky should emerge, we can summarize that on the IAM article, with the appropriate caveats. If there had been no influx whatsoever, i.e. if the upper-caste population of the Punjab was 99.5% descended from mesolithic stock, IAM would be effectively disproven. If, otoh, upper-caste Punjabi population derives, say, 85% from mesolithic stock, it is anyone's guess what portion of this influx predates the Bronze Age, and what portion predates the Islamic conquests. Conversely, a consensus on Indian origin of M17 would lend significant support to "out of India". As it happens, of course, M17 origins are most likely Central Eurasian ("steppe" LGM refuge), and the high incidence of R1a in India in fact lends significant support to "IAM", without of course being conclusive, it merely fits the scenario, it cannot be taken as independent confirmation. ] <small>]</small> 07:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, but the practical problem is that the POV brigade wants the soundbites in other articles ''now''. Waiting for a consensus isn't solving anything, I fear. ] 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::how is that different from the practical problem that the pov brigade is trolling every tenuously related article regardless of common sense? That's a problem of user conduct, not content. We have to enforce an informed summary (as opposed to an unstructured pile of cherrypicked soundbites), sure, but that is no reason to ignore the topic altogether. ] <small>]</small> 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: No way to do that without pulling out the actual numbers from those papers. Sigh. ] 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Undeciphered writing systems == | |||
| Nice job. You may want to keep an eye on it, though...if memory serves, another version of this article was deleted a while back and unceremoniously merged into ]. '''] (]·]·])''' 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :why ''deleted''? a {{tl|merge}} would be enough, the article is technically a list and I wouldn't object to a move to a "list of" title. ] <small>]</small> 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, sorry, I see you mean . ] <small>]</small> 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, ] we are! Apparently, it wasn't deleted, just redirected. You've re-redirected it to the new article, which is just as well. Anyway, a lot of articles like that and ] have been merged and/or redirected to List of writing systems. Do you think we should undo that? We may be better off having seperate pages for these lists. '''] (]·]·])''' 15:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not too fond of giant lists. That's what categories are for. ] may be essentially a list, but the non-"list of" title leaves room for some intelligent comments in prose. ] <small>]</small> 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Amfipoli== | |||
| Hi, I added a paragragraph in the article about the Greek city Amfipoli. Could you look at and maybe it edit? It's the last paragraph. Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Amfipoli Thanks! ] 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :it's looking good; of course, we have a dedicated ] article discussing the town's history. ] <small>]</small> 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == GFDL == | |||
| I didn't realize that violated something. What about the GFDL did a redacted email violate? ] 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :well, a person writes you an email, and explicitly requires you to keep the communication private, upon which you copy-paste the entire thing to Misplaced Pages. Appealing to copyright may be splitting hairs, but I see no reason not to just summarize it along the lines "this guy sent me an email, claiming this or that." ] <small>]</small> 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please see my reply on AN/I. I find it rather offensive that User:The Behnam would publicly post a private e-mail I sent him, as a matter of privacy, respect, and courtesy. --] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::that's more or less what I meant, and is the reason why I removed the full text of the email. ] <small>]</small> 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, though I happen to consider the full text more indicative of tone and I don't have much of this respect for secret intimidation messages. ] 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| ] Thanks for stopping the impostor. It is a bit unfortunate that other users might interpret the banner as if I made it myself, but it probably can't be helped. Thanks again. ] <sup>] / ]</sup> 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I know, there should be separate {{tl|sock}} and {{tl|impostor}} banners... ] <small>]</small> 12:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just note that {{tl|impostor}} used to exist and read "This user, Impostor, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages, because it exists solely to impersonate or attack ]." Maybe it should be undeleted. ] <small>]</small> 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whoever did it, it was a bad decision. ] <sup>] / ]</sup> 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:] == | |||
| Hi Dab - I'm confused over your recent creation of articles/redirects such as ], ] and I would like to understand your rationale. To me its clear that describing/connecting Hindutva with pseudoscience or propaganda is a judgment/opinion; the creation of articles on this basis does not conform with ]. Separate articles like these with a set group of authors/references seem to debate and advocate POVs as a separate entity from the overall subject. An article must be balanced, leaving all judgment-calls to the readers themselves. ] 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :nobody equates Hindutva with pseudoscience. Nevertheless, the movement has engendered fringe literature, which is the subject of the article. If you look at the talkpage, you will see that the "full" title is ], and I do invite you to move it there. I don't see how this article advocates "POVs as a separate entity from the overall subject" any more than any other article in the ] category. Of course, ] includes ], in the sense of ] meaning that fringe literature will be identified for what it is up front. NPOV does ''not'' mean that fringe views are to be treated with equal sympathy as mainstream literature. ] <small>]</small> 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your reply - I feel its an inherent problem when an article is nothing but a collection of opinions, quotes by rival sources. The entire ] article basically summarizes what individuals/groups of scholars think - Golwalkar said this, Nanda said that, Vivekananda said this, Kak and Frawley said that and on and on for Vasudev, Rajaram, Prakashan, Witzel. More than half the entire text composes of quotes from their books, from news articles, etc. This article this comes off as a debate or an op-ed piece. Even your title "]" is like a title one would give to a research paper or article. I can't understand why this information cannot be summarized within the ] article itself - that would be a more natural place for this information. A "Criticism" section can contain a para on how some historians/scholars criticize Hindutva for promoting pseudoscience. ] is in fact a lot more than just a balancing act - this article comes off as a see-saw between different points of view - an unbalanced see-saw, as more weightage is given on what the Hindutva groups have been doing, of how the BJP's education policy links up with statements made by Vivekananda and Golwalkar 50-100 years ago. There is absolutely no problem with readers arriving at this conclusion through the facts reported, but at the moment this article actively promotes that interpretation. ] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::well, it isn't a criticism of Hindutva. A criticism of Hindutva is indeed sorely missing from the Hindutva article, and I would be obliged if you could contribute to it. This is an exposition of the fringe literature that is being pushed by authors with a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) ideology. I mean, you can read the article, can't you? Why do I have to tell you what it is about on my talkpage? It is about fringe claims of "Vedic Science" anticipating scientific results, and about fringe claims regarding the ancient history of India. That's the entire scope, and I am leaving an actual criticism of Hindutva to another editor. ] <small>]</small> 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''This is an exposition of the fringe literature that is being pushed by authors with a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) ideology.'' Will I be justified in creating an article that is an ''exposition'' of fring literature by authors with an anti-Hindutva ideology? I'm sorry, but this is what an encycopedia is there for. We leave research, report, journalism and interpretations to others. I am also not convinced by your claim that this article is not a criticism of Hindutva, as that's the only clear-cut implication a reader gets. Lemme summarize what this article tells me, as a reader - ''Hindutva is in a large measure inspired by pseuoscience, outlandish assertions and fictitious nonsense.'' I'm sorry that you can't see the problems the article is carrying, but the AfD debate should shed more light on if/what the problem is and what should be done about this article. ] 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::um, no, it is the pseudoscience that is inspired by Hindutva, not the other way round. Hindutva is obviously inspired by patriotism and religious zeal, not by pseudoscience. Yes, you are free to expose fringe literature of any sort if you can find any. "anti-Hindutva" would be Muslim? or the much quoted Marxists? Of course, you are perfectly free to research and write an article about pseudoscience inspired by Marxism, or whatever you please, as long as you can discuss it by referring to respectable peer-reviewed publications. ] <small>]</small> 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmmm... I agree the "pseudoscience inspired by Hindutva" is an interesting and vital angle to be covered, but these are simply too subjective to be independently presented in the way you have done. For example, the "Vedic Science" section opens with a discussion of Vivekananda's views - are you linking him with pseudoscience? Does Hindutva come into this, given that "Hindutva" was formulated by ] in 1923 (well after the death of the likes of Bankim Chandra, Vivekananda and Tilak) and can't be considered a blanket definition for ]? Does the article deal with how Vivekananda got to that conclusion? Its just a few authors talking about this. ''"Anti-Hindutva would be Muslim? or the much quoted Marxists?'' Please do not put words in my mouth. My point was that such type of articles can create a battleground quite easily, with an article like ] becoming home to theories of why Western historians have been impugning Indian history, etc. You should know that this happens routinely, shouldn't you? Again, my point is simple - the material you want to discuss (or "expose") should be done within the Hindutva article. ] 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::yes, per ], the ] article should have a "Propaganda" section, with a {{tl|main}} template linking to our article. Please feel free to do that. Regarding your other points, that's simply a case of improving the article in good faith. I suggest you begin with reading the Sokal article. Vivekananda's quote is classical pseudoscience, and he is in the article because the current propaganda artists take recourse to his stuff. I really don't see a problem. The article has been AfDd three times now, on no other grounds than ]. You know how it works: find an academic review of Sokal and Meera, and we'll add it. That will be the only way forward. Allegations that the article attacks a religious community are empty. The "Voice of Dharma" crowd decided to masquerade their ideology as scholarship, and as a result they will have to accept that their material is criticised as if it had been scholarship. If they had never pretended to voice anything but religious or devotional musings, there would be no need to discuss pseudoscience. As it happens, Misplaced Pages has been under attack for two years by people who push these fantasies as if it were scholarship, and it is necessary to draw a line per ]. I wouldn't dream of ridiculing religious piety, but claiming the ancient rishis harnessed nuclear power in 7000 BC etc. for me falls rather outside the category of mere piety. ] <small>]</small> 10:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Help== | |||
| I have some questions and concerns I would like to ask you about via Wikimail, but couldn't find a link for that. Coould you provide a netaddress for to ask these questions privately? ] 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :please use the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox. ] <small>]</small> 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question== | |||
| Can I ask where it says <i>you are expected to wait for at least two months</i> before re-nominating an article for AfD? ] 15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :this isn't policy, just established practice as far as I am aware. The topic keeps coming up in cases like ] or ]. You may want to look through the archives yourself, or ask for opinions on ]. It is more important that a reason ''why'' the article is renominated is put forward than to wait a specified number of days. ] <small>]</small> 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought this may be the case, I have seen this argument a few times on AfD noms and it just didn't wash particularly well with myself. Thanks for the clarification. ] 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hi!== | |||
| Hi dab. I have already asked you to assume good faith. You have reverted me without giving me any reason, while I edited the article and provided an entry on Talk page. Please discuss it there and please do not revert.--] 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I would be happy to assume good faith on your part. Please show a pattern of constructive edits and suggestions that makes this possible without violating common sense. ] <small>]</small> 09:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Quotation on the history of Indian mathematics == | |||
| DAB. I thought you might find the following passage useful. | |||
| ::... the fourth variety of Hellenophilia, in which one defines science as that which modern Western scientists believe in and the methodologies with which they operate, is inappropriate to a historian ... Its active form is more pervasive in and pernicious to history. This results in the attitude that it is the task of the historian not to study the whole of a science within its cultural context, but to attempt to discover within the science elements similar to elements of modern Western science. One example I can give you relates to the Indian Mādhava's demonstration, in about 1400 A.D., of the infinite power series of trigonometrical functions using geometrical and algebraic arguments. When this was first described in English by Charles Whish, in the 1830s, it was heralded as the Indians' discovery of the calculus.... The matter resurfaced in the 1950s, and now we have the Sanskrit texts properly edited, and we understand the clever way that Mādhava derived the series ''without'' the calculus; but many historians still find it impossible to conceive of the problem and its solution in terms anything other than the calculus and proclaim that the calculus is what Mādhava found. In this case the elegance and brilliance of Madhāva's mathematics are being distorted as they are buried under the current mathematical solution to a problem to which he discovered an alternate and powerful solution. | |||
| David Pingree, "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science," ''Isis'', 83(1992): 554-563; reprinted in Michael H. Shank, ed., ''The Scientific Enterprise in Antiquity and the Middle Ages,'' (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2000) pp. 30-39. Quotation at pp. 38-9. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == Message == | |||
| Hi see my reply to you <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, you uploaded the following picture ] ], but its licence is not clear. Can you give more precisions about the licence? If yes, it will be great if you can also upload it on ]. Best regards. ] 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :the source of the image is given, it's a 1994 publication. Ultimately probably copied from an archaeological publication, I didn't check the image credits in the book. It's not a free image. It's a modern drawing of an ancient artefact. Academic fair use can be argued, but I'm afraid it cannot go on commons. ] <small>]</small> 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Artakhshrathra == | |||
| Why do some stay start with 'A' while others lack the 'A'? Is that just the linguistics of it? These two seem contradictory . ] 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :yes, it seems it's a syllabic ''r'', as it were ] Ṛ. According to ], the original Old Persian spelling is ''a-ra-ta-xa-ša-ϑa-a''. ''Rtaxšaϑrā'' or ''Artaxšaϑrā'' are reconstructions if you like, and depend on spelling conventions for Old Persian. ] <small>]</small> 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Should we go with one convention for the articles? I've been wondering the same for the spelling of ]. Two of them and the disambig have the middle 'e', but ] doesn't. Also, I made redirects for yet other alternate spellings, Yazdgird. But the problem is that I don't know which is best or whether it is important to have conformity across all of the pages. ] 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Furthermore, I've had some problems with other users at ] over whether or not to primarily use "Azer-" spellings. Despite the actual presence of "Azer-" forms in English dictionaries and many many more Google hits, some users insist upon using "Azar-". I have even seen it in edit wars. Do you have any opinion on that sort of thing? It seems to me to be a simple matter of English convention, but they are strangely passionate about keeping the "Azar-" form. ] 20:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not an expert on this. We need to make sure that our transliterations of Old Persian are consistent with the system used at the ] article. "Azarbaijan" is another matter, since the name is not Old Persian, and ''Āzārbāijān'' is correct as the transliteration of the Modern Persian. ] <small>]</small> 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed, correct as a ''transliteration''. But thanks anyway. I'll see the Old Persian page and see if the stuff conforms, assuming I understand it. ] 21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] article == | |||
| Hi. I have removed your recent additions to the ] article; they do not belong on that page, but on the page for the ] - and the information is already presented there. You will notice that the ] article is the place for information that pertains to ALL of the various honey bee species, not just the common one. There are no population declines in any other species. ] 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :thanks. I admit my additions were uninformed. However, since I came to the article to look for that information, the topic should be linked from "see also" or something to prevent it being added repeatedly by well-meaning users. ] <small>]</small> 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Unicode Latin}} == | |||
| ] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> — ] 06:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Tamil is a Classical Language. == | |||
| Tamil is a Classical Language so adding 'Tamil Literature' into Classical Language category as Sub-Category, and 'Tamil Language' as Article. Just like how Sanskrit added in both Places Sub-category and Language article. | |||
| Tamil is the world's first language and India's original native language. Which is the only oldest living language of the world, no other language in the world deserves this status. So dont remove Tamil Literature from these categories. Please read about Tamil and Its history in this link if you dont know anything about Tamil. | |||
| http://en.wikibooks.org/THE_PRIMARY_CLASSICAL_LANGUAGE_OF_THE_WORLD | |||
| ] 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :see ]. The articles in ] are ], ] etc., and not ], ] etc.; I recommend you write an actual ] article. ] <small>]</small> 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Dbachmann, There is no difference between Classical Tamil and Tamil, both are same. Tamil is classical from the ancient ages. And there is no big differece between current Tamil and 2000 year old Tamil. As it is the first language of the mankind, it is ancient language. ] 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't want to be rude, but that's obviously nonsense. ] <small>]</small> 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Even I don't want to be rude, thats why I called you as Brother. First try to learn Tamil and understand it, dont try to impose your view here as if your the only intelligent in the whole world. The Government of India itself agreed upon the Classicality of Tamil and Acncientness of Tamil. Then what other proof you are expecting??? ] 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Didn't you notice in Classical Language Category, the Sanskrit is there in both Sub-category and in article, why you didn't remove those??? Be neutural my brother.] 21:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::that's because "]" is a fossilized, artificial literary language, not a living and changing language like Tamil. ] <small>]</small> 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, Sanskrit is a dead classical language, but Tamil is a living classical language. What difference did you find in current Tamil and ancient Tamil, it is very negligible, thats all. So no need to distinguish like this. First read the qualification for Classical Language, there is nothing mentioned that the language should be dead or fossilized and should not change??. | |||
| :: Read the following link for clarification: This is a Government of India's website. http://www.ciil-classicaltamil.org/faq.html#faq4 ] 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Tamil === | |||
| Hi Brother, | |||
| Why do you change the Biography of Devaneya Pavanar?? Do you know anything about him? or Did you read any book about him???? | |||
| Please refer the library of www.tamilvu.org, which is Tamil Virtual University owned by Govt of Tamil Nadu, India. | |||
| I'm just giving what he researched in his book, thats all. Please don't remove those facts. | |||
| === Editing Devaneya Pavanar.. === | |||
| If you feel copy-paste, just remove those and correct the brokern English. dont remove the important part of the article and sny sub categories. Why are you removing the referances links unnecessarily???. Thank You.] 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Try to respect others.. === | |||
| I have give enough proof and bibliography in the article ]. Its all fact and truth, if you are blind and not seeing sun, then don't say there is no sun in the universe. Try to go through the Library of Tamil Virtual University. These things are nationalised and published by Government of India. I'm always accept some positive and right changes but not these kind of blunt things. ] 10:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You have given no "bibliography" whatsoever. All bibliographic detail in the article was added by me. Misplaced Pages has a place for national mysticism, it's in ], but even that sort of thing needs to be referenced. ] <small>]</small> 10:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have give some bibliography, Thanks for adding some more in the article, appreciate your work. There is no Myth here, everything is scientific. Probably you can add Sanskrit scholars and Sanskrit researches into National Mythism because thats talk about 100% myth only instead of truth. Thanks You] 13:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tamils came from Lemuria in 10000 BC. Sure, Rajan, you convinced me, I will now begin changing all articles related to historical linguistics to this effect, tahnks for pointing this out. ] <small>]</small> 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Try to understand and try to apply common sense, Tamils are native people of South Asia which includes Lemuria, once Lemuria was part of Tamil Region is washed by waters and submerged in Indian Ocean. Lemuria is also part of India. ] 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I stumbled upon this, and I am shocked that dab lacks the common sense to realize these obvious truths. Landmasses are regularly washed by waters and submerged. This is because landmasses, such as Lemuria, float on top of the ocean, so when water gets onto them, they sink, like a boat. This definitely happened to Lemuria; it's just common sense. This is very 'duh'. For shame, dab! :) ] 04:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am not sure what you mean. I just declared that I am fully convinced of the Lemurian origins of the human race, particulary Tamil. ] <small>]</small> 08:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Vulimiri Ramalingaswami and Mani Shankar Aiyar == | |||
| Hi Mr.Bachman | |||
| I am a student from Chennai based in Pune new to Wiki.I noticed two articles on ] and ].Seraph who kindly welcomed me suggested I merge but I am somewhat worried as there is information in each not in the other.I also perused teh Aiyar page and after going though sources did an edit which was deleted by Hornplease who left a puzzling exasperating note I could not follow.I notice you visited the site recently.Would you be able to guide.Thanks(] 10:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :this is a straightforward case for merging. I've placed merge templates on the articles. ] <small>]</small> 10:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Mythism... == | |||
| Sanskrit Scholars used to call Sanskrit language as Divine Language, Pavanar is just gave evidences to prove Tamils excellence, thats all. So there is no myth here. If you want please add Sanskrit and Sanskrit related articles in the Mythism Category. | |||
| Go and add Hinduism into Mythology and Mythism, that is the valid article for all Myths. Not in ]. It talks about life of ] and his major research works, that all.] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your deletion warring to well published points == | |||
| Dab, in ] , my additions are well ref. about spoked wheel findings in IVC. It's clear that you think that you are greater than ] , Basham etc. renowned archeologists involved in IVC excavations. Honour their published findings. For ready ref. I have also provided B.B.Lal's study paper containing photos as ref. | |||
| Similarway, in ] , Palaeogeography which is well ref. is deleted by you. G. Possehl & P.H. Francfort's ref. findings are deleted by you & your gang. ( this gang word is used by you recently ). You don't want readers to know the newer findings. You want to make them read your POV based version only. For your this type of behaviour, you have got many `medals'. | |||
| Not honouring this findings shows a zealous person who don't want to update WP with newer findings. And, infact I should be calling Mediator instead of you. Your behaviour is like `a thief scolding a policeman for catching the theft'! ] 11:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You are hopeless, Win. Maybe you can stop to think that it is your confused synthesis, not the authors you pretend to report, that are the reason you are reverted. If it was just you against me, we'd go on RfC. Since you are reverted by at least four veteran editors, you need the humility to seek consensus for whatever it is you want. Insisting on your verbatim addition is a bad idea, and even more so because your Engilsh is poor. The revision you want will not be implemented by edit-warring, and you may face sanctions for disruption if you continue. ] <small>]</small> 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Now you are blaming on my so called `confused synthesis' and not authors ! You & your gang ( I am again using this gang word which is first used by you in WP ) can not `read' that in most cases additions are almost exactly from authors'. If you find my additions written in simple english as something very complex then talk about it point by point. But, it's you who is deleting outrightly my additions as they are against your version that you want to push ( and now blaming on `confued synthesis' ! ). If my additions are not well refered from published work then only you can blame , otherwise it's against WP policy. ] 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I did not expect you to understand, or even try to, but I gave you fair warning nevertheless. I don't think further debate is necessary. ] <small>]</small> 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Devaneya Pavanar == | |||
| Please read the changes before reverting it completely. In reference Cheif Minister link redicts to O.Paneerselvam, but the current Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is M. Karunanidhi, thats what I changed there, but you reverted it against the statands and violation rules of wiki. Dont be blind, please try to read everything before reverting it blindly.] 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :you are not very quick, are you? The Chief Minister attended the festivities in ''']''' - what does that have to do with the chap holding office since 2006? ] <small>]</small> 11:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Transliteration == | |||
| Man, in the name of Transliteration your making the article unreadable. Please leave it in English only, dont try to write it in Devanagri script which has nothing to do with Tamil.] 13:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :what are you talking about? There isn't a single Devanagari character in the article. We are using ] as the transliteration scheme of choice for Tamil. Maybe you would care to have a look at ] and ]? ] <small>]</small> 13:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right, then you should use ] tag not ], the words you changed are now meaning less and unreadable, see the difference below. | |||
| Correct Tag: {{IAST|Ñānamuttaṉ Tēvanēya Pāvāṇar}} | |||
| Wrong Tag: ''Ñānamuttaṉ Tēvanēya Pāvāṇar'' | |||
| The second one is in unreadable form and conveys no mean. So please better change it to ] tag.] 13:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This is a problem with your browser, Mr. Software Professional. Both versions look fine to me. Note that the IAST tag is inappropriate: IAST, as you can '''find out for yourself''' by clicking on ] means "International Alphabet for '''Sanskrit''' Transliteration", and as you say yourself, we are not transliterating Sanskrit here. ] <small>]</small> 13:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| What nonsense edits are you doing ] page, use the tags properly, and I advice you to see the preview before saving. ] 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :calm down, it was a leaking "noinclude", fixed after less than a minute. . ] <small>]</small> 15:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no problem in my browser, dont balme other's browser for your mistake. Thanks for rectifiying it. ] 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::you funny <small>(])<!-- Template:RPA --></small>, if Unicode characters don't render for you, ''your'' browser is to blame. What sort of "Software Professional" are you, anyway? See ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My browser was rendering Unicode perfectly, but you made the mistake not tagged properly, but you corrected it afterwards, then its ok. First correct userself, how come you know about my browers rendering capability, you are more funny??? Cool down dude.] 17:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::you must been among the slowest thinkers I have met. I sincerely hope this is just a langauge problem. ] <small>]</small> 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Even you must been among the most slowest thinkers I have met. I sincerely hope this is just a problem of lack of comprehensive thinking of you, please try to improve that. I just dont want to argu with you with this as I have some more useful work to do. so stop!!!!. ] 23:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Greek == | |||
| Hi Dab. About according to the the breathings are transliterated. I know the polytonic script is no longer officially used (except maybe on ]); it's mainly so the reader know where the name "Hellenic" came from. How about writing something like "(h)ellēniká"?--] 19:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :you are right, ISO 843 has ''h''. We have to be clear what exactly we are transliterating: ''ellēniká'' transliterates ελληνικά, and ''hellēniká'' transliterates ἑλληνικά, and ''hellēnikḕ glôtta'' transliterates ἑλληνικὴ γλῶττα :) i.e., we shouldn't put ''hellēniká'' next to 'breathless' ελληνικά ] <small>]</small> 19:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I see what you mean. We have this table in an article, ], and what ISO 843 recommends is listed in the scientific transcription schemes for classical Greek, this is why it was never an issue. I assumed the breathing should be included because ISO gives no explicit guidance on the issue and (which is not ISO) says that " romanization for rough breathing is supplied whether or not the mark appears in the Greek vernacular text".--] 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see your point. I am fine with either option, no problem. ] <small>]</small> 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Should I change it to "(h)ellēniká" then, or "hellēniká" bearing in mind that "ellēniká" seems to be also widely used ? The reason I was raising the issue is that, as far as I can tell at least, it makes no sense to use a half academic transliteration - "ē" is not distinguished from "i" when spoken, so it's primarily of academic interest and it raises questions why the "h" is missing. It may not be written nowadays, but it is certainly be used in word building; the classic example of this is anti-Greek, which in Greek is ανθελληνικός, even though breathings are not marked, the τ of αντι is changed to θ.--] 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::but ''ellēniká'' *is* the correct transliteration of ελληνικά. We are talking about ''transliteration'' of the ], pronunciation has nothing to do with it. It is not "primarily of academic interest" that the word is spelled ελληνικά and not *ελλινικά. ] <small>]</small> 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK.--] 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Out in Tamil country, we did things differently... == | |||
| Can you tell me if this article is an actual concept? ]. I've tagged it to use in-text citation, but I don't know if this thing is real anyway. ] 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :definitely a cleanup candidate. If no better references are brought forward, it will be best to just merge it into existing good articles. ] <small>]</small> 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::if i may - some of the info on that article is valid. some of it is unbridled POV. some of it is unbridled OR. rest is unbridled simply 'Pavanarian' nonsense. in any case, lot of the contents need to be merged to other articles. ] 21:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hindutva Propaganda== | |||
| Hi Dab, I'm confused about how the article got deleted. According to my accounting the votes were 20 to delete, 16 to keep, plust 3 "keep"s from the first AfD (people who didn't re-cast their votes); in addition, there were "draws" (i.e. Delete or major rewrite etc). That doesn't sound like a real consensus. I must say because I was too busy, I was not able to pay much attention to the subject until last night when I read Sudeshna Guha's article in ''Modern Asian Studies''. I think there is certainly enough noteworthiness in the subject to merit an article. How does one recover the text is one wants to work on it? ]] 12:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : According to Daniel Bryant, the delete side made the more cogent case. Case for "I don't like it", I suppose. ] 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::yes, he assumed good faith where there was only "faith based initiative". ] <small>]</small> 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for adding the material to my page. In the coming days, I'll read some of the articles from the references. I have also ordered Nanda's book. Meanwhile, maybe we should think about an apt title and how to revise the article if and when it is reinstated or if and when we write another article. So far I see Hindutva "infiltration" in a) Archaeology, b) History of Science, c) Highschool Education. How about History? Do we have any references for History (proper), i.e. post 8th century CE? I should imagine that the Hindutva inspired historians would have something to say about Islam in India. I don't know though who these historians are. (I mean the history version of S. Kak). For example, who are the authors of these highschool textbooks? ]] 19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The Hindutva side seems to be the only one trolling ancient history, but if we're going to cover education and more recent history, there is obviously a lot of revisionism flying around also from anti-Hindu quarters, we'll have to be careful to remain balanced there. In education in ], we seem to be looking at a 40 year brainwashing campaign that "Homo Dravida" is original man, degraded by those evil invading Aryans (see ]). I can understand the Hindu side tries to counter that, but instead of debunking anti-Hindu myths, they (i.e., the loony fringe) attempt to debunk western scholarship instead. ] is a shining example of ] science, the holy task of wrenching philology from , who usurped and corrupted it. I do not find it surprising that such a general climate proves unable to produce sane academic debate. And with the internet, of course, this cabinet of horrors after decades of incubation spills straight onto Misplaced Pages. It would be depressing if it wasn't so fascinating :) I don't feel prepared to tackle the topic of propaganda surrounding education on the history of Islam in India. You want to edit ] for that. The author you are looking for is ] (]!) -- ta-daa! it's the owner of ]... ] <small>]</small> 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: The medieval period is a horse of a different color, entirely, with a different cast of characters on the Hindu side, including genuine scholars (such as, yes, Goel). There's a fringe too, occupied in -- what else? -- a slanging match with "eminent historians" (Arun Shourie's sardonic name for a number of historians of a mostly Marxist stamp), but there are indeed genuine historiographical issues here. VoI started with this legitimate debate, and then got hijacked by the anti-AIT fruitcakes. IMO, it isn't a good idea to lump the two groups together simply because they have VoI in common. ] 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::true enough -- Goel may present his case extremely lopsidedly, but at least, unlike the common Paleolithic-Aryans fruitcake, he does ''have'' a case. ] <small>]</small> 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New Troll == | |||
| is a bad joke. There's no reason to doubt that Cosmos416 is a science student in Canada, likely U of Ottawa. Obviously the intent of the smear is to "radicalize" the fellow even more than he is already. ] 04:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :LOL. I thought this was even better: . The proximity of these two makes me wonder. By the way, note the control page in place at ]. Is there a similar page to coordinate potential sock activity for your favorite socks? ] 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Etmology question == | |||
| A user has raised a question related to possible Indo-European root connections on my talk page regarding the derivation of ''vulva'' from the sanskrit ''ulva'' and possible connection to ''bilva'' and or ''vilva'': ]. If you have a chance, would you look at his question and give a comment to it on my talk page? Linguistics are one of the many areas in which I am largely ignorant. ] 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == all this... == | |||
| Dab, I continue to believe that you have the best interests of truth, knowledge and this encyclopedia. You are correct in identifying that Misplaced Pages has been assailed by rowdy, disrespectful advocates of all kinds of ideologies - I am your comrade-in-arms against all that ]. | |||
| However, I cannot appreciate your "criticism" of me (at ] and Bhadani at ]. I had responded to Rudra's rudeness to me; I was not badgering him. I honestly believed in the AfD debate over Hindutva propaganda and I don't care for insinuations that it was a bad-faith AfD, even if the Hindutva lobby was at work in it. In the case of ], why did you feel a need to assail Bhadani and '''not drop a warning''' to Bypd for the multiple personal attacks he made? Did you forget your solemn responsibilities as an admin? | |||
| The point of this message is - please cool down. We cannot control the behavior of others - just ourselves. My frustration at false accusations and attacks has often led to me exploding, but sooner or later I must return to cohesion. Defending yourself from false accusations is one thing, but consistently attacking others over content disputes is another. Please fight the battle against ideologues without compromising your own character. | |||
| If you wish to criticize me or talk frankly about an issue, please do so directly and I will respect it. I want to help stop the ideologues, but the right way. ] 20:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :once again, I would be delighted to work together with you in good faith. You are free to vote how ever you like at an AfD if you genuinely feel your vote complies with ]. As it is, I have heard not a single argument in line with that policy. Attempts to address pov-concerns were ''reverted'' by the AfD submitter: he was not interested in debate, he wanted the article gone wholesale. The notability of the topic was never disputed. The only reasonable complaint was "POV", which is not a matter for AfD. If you can overcome your sectarian convictions and for the purposes of Misplaced Pages let them come second to policy, I will be ever so happy to work with you towards an article everyone can accept as neutral and informative. This will imply, however, that you are prepared to revert edits that violate policy even if you agree with the general gist of that edit. The same holds for me, of course: I am not interested in piling up unsourced allegations or cherry-picking quotes. I am only interested in a fair representation of expert opinion. In cases where expert opinion runs contrary to my own, I am perfectly happy to insert a short note that there are minority views. I would expect the same of you: if it turns out that expert opinion conflicts with your own sentiment, Misplaced Pages policy forces you to let it stand, nay, to even defend that with which you disagree against bad faith attacks (deletions or misrepresentations). If and only if you are prepared to defend well-sourced content you personally find objectionable you are a true Wikipedian. ] <small>]</small> 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Norse history and culture wikiproject == | |||
| ] and ] both appear to be defunct at this point. I would like to set up a new Wikiproject to oversee articles on ancient and medieval Scandinavian and Nordic history that would cover what these inactive projects used to. | |||
| There are literally hundreds of great articles on obscure sagas, historical figures and the like (largely through the efforts of such users as ] and ]). Since you have edited many Norse-themed articles in the past, I would be interested in your thoughts on how best to proceed. --] ] ] 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am unsure these days of the merit of wikiprojects. They seem to result mostly in huge overhead tagging talkpages, and if possible endless debates no which tag is appropriate. Not that there aren't any examples to the contrary, of course. I think the ] is the best example of what such a project should be. Such organizing is important if you have a huge number of editors working away at different bits and pieces without awareness of each other. The project's role is to facilitate communication, and to establish project-internal guidelines, which once matured can be exported to MoS. | |||
| :] is obviously pointless and should be merged into ] asap. I would not create yet another project on "ancient and medieval Scandinavian and Nordic history" but make that a "taskforce" within ], which could be resurrected and turned into a blooming beauty along the lines of ]. But the problem is, unless you have many participants, the project will then again just sit there. ] <small>]</small> 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==DRV== | ==DRV== | ||
| Line 497: | Line 9: | ||
| :sure, it would be best not to debate it any further, ''after'' the out-of-process deletion has been reverted. If that doesn't happen, you know how these things go, we'll never hear the end of it. ] <small>]</small> 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | :sure, it would be best not to debate it any further, ''after'' the out-of-process deletion has been reverted. If that doesn't happen, you know how these things go, we'll never hear the end of it. ] <small>]</small> 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Well, the edit warring has already started at ]. Just look at the arguments given. How predictable. So much for cozy pipedreams of mergability. This may not be DGG's intent, but the message is that the Hindu section of WP has been abandoned as a hopeless case. Will that hurt WP? Who knows. After all, even the moon has ''kalańka''. ] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | Well, the edit warring has already started at ]. Just look at the arguments given. How predictable. So much for cozy pipedreams of mergability. This may not be DGG's intent, but the message is that the Hindu section of WP has been abandoned as a hopeless case. Will that hurt WP? Who knows. After all, even the moon has ''kalańka''. ] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| : Thanks for helping out over bilva | |||
| : I was only wondering if perhaps its use in fertility rites was related to its name or vice versa. | |||
| : And so I may have imposed to much on already overworked fellow travellers. | |||
| : I am ashamed, | |||
| : ] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::not at all -- I confess I know nothing about the rite in question, but I really don't think the name has anything to do with it. regards, ] <small>]</small> 23:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Following your lead I discover that the bilva leaves are almond shaped, as such they link with the general symbolism. See: ]. I am now whistling and dancing again. | |||
| : Thanks, | |||
| : ] 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi == | == Hi == | ||
Revision as of 09:23, 11 April 2007
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 April 2007 (UTC)
DRV
I am sure you understand that my comment at the DRV on H.p. is primarily based on the feeling it would be more productive not to debate the matter further--not from any disagreement with your basic view--and i notice that Guy said the same--one of the few times he & I agree.DGG 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- sure, it would be best not to debate it any further, after the out-of-process deletion has been reverted. If that doesn't happen, you know how these things go, we'll never hear the end of it. dab (𒁳) 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the edit warring has already started at Hindutva. Just look at the arguments given. How predictable. So much for cozy pipedreams of mergability. This may not be DGG's intent, but the message is that the Hindu section of WP has been abandoned as a hopeless case. Will that hurt WP? Who knows. After all, even the moon has kalańka. rudra 00:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Can you please take a look at Battle of Thermopylae? Some users are inserting the upper-bound of ancient estimates in the infobox, which is an impossible mythical 5.2 million Persians! Yet, the same users are removing the lower-bound of modern estimates which is 60,000. This doesn't seem NPOV at all.--Mardavich 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)