Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 27 November 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 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 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI / RfC

Started by Rokus: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dbachmann. - Merzbow 06:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann on WP:CIVIL and on dodging the issue:

will those who don't spend time around nationalists and supremacists of various descriptions please not throw the first stone here sums it up nicely. If I show frustration, it is frustration over the difficulty of enforcing basic Misplaced Pages core policy these days. "Uninvolved Admins" should flock to my aid rather than chatting about perceptions of "rudeness". A pov-pusher is a pov-pusher. Of course they will cry "admin abuse", "rudeness", "WP:CIVIL" if they are called pov-pushers, what are people expecting? I am well capable of "writing for the enemy" and ignoring my own views in the interest of encyclopedicity. WP:CIVIL means that you shouldn't shout abuse at people. It doesn't mean you have to waste time flattering people who have obviously no interest in adhering to policy. WP:CIVIL appears to have become mainly a red herring for trolls to hide behind these days. I fully believe in keeping things impersonal and detached, even curt. To go forum-shopping and wikilawyering over "civility" when you find that you have no case in terms of content is disingenious, and has been tolerated far too much. I am here for encyclopedic content, and I expect to interact with people who are here for encyclopedic content. I am willing to invest time in bona fide debate, but I have simply no interest in prancing around over anything else: I have seen far to many pov-pushers come and go with zero result except for time wasted over the years. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that as per discussion at WP:ANI, a formal RfC has been created regarding your user behavior. It can be found here: .---- Ramdrake (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

that's the correct way to go, I suppose. I have nothing to add to what I say above. If anyone wants me, I'll be writing encyclopedia articles. Let me know when you have something to say on content. dab (𒁳) 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick / Relata refero

From User talk:Relata refero

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, you seriously need to learn to stop throwing your weight around like that. The edit in question itself was most problematic. In my book, you have a propensity for wheel warring. I asked you to take the problem you had with Moreschi's admin measures to AN. You refused, preferring to stage a pathetic show of admin infighting. Now you go around branding me as a "borderline troll" because I dared draw attention to your problematic behaviour, and now you end up bullying completely uninvolved users who thought that I had a point. Where do you think you are headed with an attitude like that? Please accept that if you feel you are being abused or "personally" attacked, especially by one of your fellow admins, you are to take the matter to another admin, ideally AN/I and ask for wider input. You need to accept that you are not a law unto yourself around here, and that it may be possible, unbelievable as it may strike you, to honestly disagree with your autocratic approach to adminship. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bachmann, it appears that your comments are specious and unkind.

• The comment might have been problematic, but that is your point of view. You cannot make comments that can be perceived as personal attacks. Your specific reference to me, on a noticeboard, was a personal and offensive remark. The link to the diff was removed without actually altering your original comments.
• You do not seem to have a good grasp of what wheel-warring is, and seem to equate the term to editing and removal of offensive messages against other contributors. You are advised to please review the WP:WHEEL policy on Misplaced Pages. You will see it strictly refers to "admin actions" and not editing actions. In any case, it is also advised that you review what disruptive editing and edit-warring mean. In the present circumstances, it is strongly recommended that you consider owning up your administrative tools.
• You were never referred to as a borderline troll, please read the comments (summary) properly.
• The messages contained on your talk page and mine make it plausible for every user on the encyclopedia to deduce who is more problematic.
• Yours sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• • indeed. I did not expect we were going to talk at eye level. Just take your issues to AN/I in the future. Yes, I get into edit disputes sometimes. Try keeping some order in nationalism related articles some time and see how it goes. None of the disputes you see on this talkpage are related to any admin actions of mine, or about throwing around my weight as an admin. I consider my self a contributor to encyclopedia articles who also has admin buttons to deal with the odd janitorial task. I do not consider myself chief of a petty dukedom and try getting kicks from bullying the peons. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, he has a point about your talkpage, dab. Perhaps you should refuse to carry on conversations on your talkpage that might cast you in a bad light, and archive everything away regularly. It would certainly mean you're on a level playing field in terms of the comparison he speaks of!

About wheel-warring, It's interesting: I would suppose that indicating that informal guidelines had been laid down for editing on the basis of which administrative powers would be used is perhaps an administrative action, but I suppose it is debatable. Relata refero (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to blank your talkpage. I will archive this page soon due to length, but I do not think anything on it casts me in a bad light, except for the 3RRvio, and this was the first time I slipped into policy violation via a complex revert in over three years. No, I may get my hands dirty as an editor, as compared to the "IRC adminhood" who cannot for the life of them judge on encyclopedicity but who nevertheless feel they are the cream of the project. I am most judicious about using my admin buttons in disputes, and this does compare favourably to people like "Sir Nicholas" who resort to block threats as soon as somebody dares to withold the admiring praise they think they deserve. I also know when it is futile to pursue a discussion. We know RfA is broken, we know that it has produced the "IRC caste" of admins who perceive Misplaced Pages as a power game and a popularity contests. Unsavoury encounters like this one are only a corollary, and I cannot aim at embarking on the major crusade that would be necessary to confront this problem. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've often thought that RfA's need to have a lower threshold for acceptance, especially since it means that editors who get their hands dirty will never become admins. I hardly ever vote in an RfA except when I really don't want the person getting in, and I suppose that's true of most people. Relata refero (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to nominate you for adminship if you like. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush's comment on separation of church and state

Hi, it's me again. After the last edit controversy at Lords of Chaos (book) I had decided to stay away from articles about fascism for some time, because I wouldn't be able to stand another issue like this. Since then I didn't get into much controversy, so I actually continued with the debate at Neo-fascism and Religion. Anyway, another issue has arisen, and this time I am thinking even more seriously of just quitting Misplaced Pages or intentionally breaking 3RR to get mysself banned. I had cleaned up the contemporary section of Historical Persecution by Christians and moved one sentence from there to Separation of church and state in the United States. It is about George H. W. Bush, who is supposed to have said: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." I expanded this slightly, the last revision can be found in this revision, bottom section. However, two other editors are of the opinion that it shouldn't be included in the article. They want to move this to American Atheists, but I did not just cleanup one POV Fork to create another. They won't even allow the time for a discussion, although in this case I think I have shown the intention to compromise. I should probably really care less, but this is not a complex scholarly discussion, but a simple question whether the debate about a statement that an American president allegdly made about an issue is notable enough to be mentione the respective article. If Wikipidia is not able to sort this out, there would no be much point in editing, would it? I would really appreciate your advise, best regards, Zara1709 (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to support a brief discussion of the statement in Separation of church and state in the United States. But there is room for debate, of course. It isn't right for these other editors to refuse to debate the question, but most importanly, you should try not to care enough about details like this to consider quitting Misplaced Pages over them. There are good reasons to quit Misplaced Pages, but such quibbles are really just business as usual. Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages can be edited by absolutely everyone, so what do you expect... This is both Misplaced Pages's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. We are here to get as much out of the strength part as we can while being bogged down by the weakness part as little as possible. That's not always working out, but it often is. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore edits

Hey, Dab, I thought I would give you a heads-up about a comment I posted in Talk:Albus Dumbledore. Following up on a comment by another user, it appears that you posted an apparent connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. I read and re-read your successive postings before and after it, to see if perhaps there was some incredibly wry wit intended. I must confess that I am at a loss as to find it, if it were intended. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not connected, and I think you might wish to return to the talk page in question, tender an apology and strike through the offending text. You may not have intended to offend others with your comment, but offended they were. I'm not gay, but i must confess that I, found your comment not only wrong, but categorically inappropriate. Could I get you to address the comment right away, please? - Arcayne () 11:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

great, it appears I have perpetrated another political uncorrectness. Please give me a break:

• I have immediately qualified the remark as inconsequential to the debate. I do not want to elaborate on it
• My mention of pedophilia was motivated by the "special" relationship of Dumbledore and Harry Potter specifically, not by any musings on a connection of homosexuality and pedophilia in general.
• I have commented on the question before in a context that was actually pertinent, viz. here and here. Anyone interested in my thoughts on the matter will find all I have to say on it there, without my needing to repeat myself. They will specifically find that I have actively counteracted attempts at gay-bashing by MoritzB (talk · contribs) et al., even though I had to conclude that the blanket statement "Homosexuality and pedophilia are not connected" is not tenable without qualification. For your convenience, I repeat my concluding remarks:

  All that Blanchard's study says is that a certain fraction of pedophiles prefer boys, and that this fraction is higher than the average percentage of gays in society. That's it. Now this can be abused for anti-gay progaganda, and we don't want that, but it is not, in itself, anti-gay. this is a study on pedophiles, not on homosexuals. MoritzB quoted other studies that say incidence of pedophilia is about twice as high among homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. I don't know if the study is reliable, because the "anti-anti-gay vigilance" on Misplaced Pages have campaigned to remove the reference rather than citing criticism. Now look, it is still true in any case that "no evidence is available from this data that children are at greater risk to be molested by identifiable homosexuals than by other adults". Why? Because only 10% of child molesters are also homosexuals. From the pov of the victim, your chances are 90% that your molester is a hetero. Since there are only about 5% homosexuals in society at large, that might calculate to a 100% higher incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals. See what you can do with statistics? "no evidence that children are at greater risk to be molested by identifiable homosexuals" and "homosexuals are twice as likely to be child molesters" are both true statements according to these statistics, they are just given different spins. The anti-anti-gay brigade would do well to combat the spin, and not bona fide discussion of academic studies. I might add that they could do the combatting with a little more decorum and less hysteria.

• I do not intend to discuss the topic any further. I am not an expert, and I have no particular interest in the topic.

dab (𒁳) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, if you are not an expert, you shouldn't be commenting on the subject matter, even in an attempt at humor. Your previous actions in stopping gay-bashing aside, your comments were not taken in the context that you intended, and were in fact viewed by two different editors with nothing else in common except for the wonderment that you would say such a thing.

At the very least, you should address the comment, as it did not achieve the apparent Bag O' Clever you were shopping for. While I am assuming good faith on your part, qualifying your remark as "inconsequential" doesn't resolve or conclude the matter, which I can foresee escalating unless you take immediate action to address it. You need to clearly state that you - at best - were writing tongue-in-cheek commentary (at worst, you made a tremendous faux pas or are a creep that needs to be shown the door - personally, I don't believe the latter).

Lastly, using Blanchard's study to defend your statement doesn't help your cause here. - Arcayne () 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

are you an expert? I am not an expert, but I have made the effort to review academic studies on the topic. I give a full explanation of my comments right above, including context pointers to further research you were not even asking for. I have no idea what is supposed to be "creepy" about my comment, or how you can ask me to "address" my comment when I have just done so, or what my faux pas is supposed to consist of. I beg to submit that I consider it a "tremendous faux pas", if not a blatant personal attack, on the part of I do not exist (talk · contribs) to allege that I implied "all gays are pedophiles" when I have never done anything remotely like that. But I have no interest in seeking sanctions or otherwise pursuing the case. My position towards the question of the general relation of homosexuality and pedophilia, which is completely unrelated to my original comment, is laid out above. Precisely because I am not an expert and have no vested interest, my opinion is entirely based on academic studies by experts. I must conclude that you did not pay attention to what I write above. Please read it. I am not "using using Blanchard's study to defend my statement". The fictional relation of (sigh) Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore has nothing whatsoever to do with real-life studies of pedophilia. Ok? I could write an analysis of how Dumbledore's erratic behaviour towards Harry Potter, which repeatedly caused confusion and cast doubt on Dumbledore's feelings and character (it's in the text), will appear in a very different light if viewed on the premise of Dumbledore's homosexuality. This would be a case study, and a fictional case at that, and not any comment on pedophilia in general as "I do not exist" would like to allege. And I will not write such an analysis, because (a) it would be original research and (b) I am not too fond of Rowling and have better things to do than to write essays on books that I don't really like. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

"There is nothing in HP to suggest Dumbledore is gay (indeed, the implication opens up creepy scenarios of pedophilia, but this is beside the point..."

I would submit that the "creepy scenario" connecting homosexuality and pedophilia was inadvertantly introduced by yourself, likely making a wry aside at another discussion, and you were essentially making the comparison that JKR noting Dumbledore's homosexuality was going to likely bring in those who would now make pedophilic connections. I am not saying you are one of these pathetic bags of SpringerMeat, Dab. I am saying that your edit was rather poorly crafted, and should be addressed in a proactive way. If it was not your intention to make that connection, it would seem in your best interest to fix the problem rather than argue your (or other folks') intentions. I assure you that my intentions in this matter are not to witchhunt, but merely to fix the problem; you are an admin, recognize that you've made a slight mistake and take steps to correct it, please. - Arcayne () 13:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. I find it in violation of NPOV to refer to those who propose a statistical correlation of homosexuality and pedophilia as "pathetic bags of SpringerMeat". This is the attitude I describe as "hysterical" above. But you are right that I, myself, do not propose such a hypothesis, although I am aware of its existence. My comment was indeed intended to gesture towards the near unavoidable event that people will make the connection, and I personally judge that Rowling's statement was ill-advised in the light of this. My comment expresses this and nothing else, and I fully stand by its wording. I resent attempts to twist my comments into something they do not say. I cannot "fix the problem" if people go out of their way to take offense. I appreciate your good faith in this, but unfortunately I must say I find you rather inflate the problem instead of helping to "fix" it. I am willing to apologize even for unintended offense I cause, but there are certain limits to empathy into reasonable cause for offense. I repeat that I do hold myself the insulted party in this, and that furthermore I have no desire to harp on it. I am not prepared to discuss on the level of "pathetic bags of SpringerMeat" and similar niceties. My actual take on the topics involved is now laid out here for anyone interested, and I trust that anyone taking the trouble to review it will go away reassured that I am neither a "creep" nor a "pathetic meatbag". I do not propose to do anything beyond that. dab (𒁳) 13:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I apologize for my misunderstanding. I overreacted, and I'm sorry. - ∅ (∅), 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

that's very kind of you. On my part, let me apologize for any inadvertent offense I may have caused you. dab (𒁳) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, are you assuming that I'm calling you a "pathetic bags of SpringerMeat"? LOL! Not at all! Wow, when you go on the defensive, you go all out. I was referring to the anti-gay propoganda using the arguable connection that Blanchard referred to in the quote you provided. I certainly didn't count you amongst them. If I felt at all that you were that way, I wouldn't have bothered doing more than simply notifying you of an impending AN/I. Since I did not feel that you were like this, i wrote to you to let you know that some editors (three at last count) found the comment odd, and that you might want to nip the potential problem in the bud. nothing more. - Arcayne () 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming no such thing. You seriously need to learn to pay attention more closely if you take it upon yourself to play mediator. Can we lay this to rest now? I think all that needed saying has been said now. dab (𒁳) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Greece

Dear Dbachmann. Thanks for your attempts to straighten out Ancient Greece. As you may have ssen from the talk page, some of us are pondering to substantially rewrite that article, which remains rather poor. Would you have an interest in such a venture? To be entirely honst with you, I am not convinced that your strict century-by-century order is necessarily the non plus ultra, as it may fragment history to some extent, but I think that it's the best thing that can be done for the moment.

Question: Is it desirable for the article to be predominantly a historical summary? Next, should separate cultural aspects, like art, philosophy, literature, architecture (et c) be kept as separate sections, or be integrated with the general chronological text. I'm not asking suggestively, as I am quite unsure. athinaios (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree: my edits were optimized towards optimal benefit with minimal investment. The article does, as you say, remain comparatively poor. I do encourage you to invest effort in a substantial rewrite, but please keep in mind that we aim at a Misplaced Pages:Summary style article. Whatever you do, your rewrite should not feature lengthy prose paragraphs, just concise pointers to {{main}} articles. dab (𒁳) 16:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That one's a keeper

Shamelessly stolen for my user page. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: we educate the world (one clueless choleric teenage nationalist at a time). :) dab (𒁳) 19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pelasgians

Would you care to do the honors in terms of fixing the "paragraph" supposedly supporting an Albanian-Pelasgian connection? I have a strange feeling that if either Tsourkpk or myself were to follow through with your critical review, then Taulant23 and other Albanian users might conduct more revert-wars under the guise of fending off "vandalism" and "Greek nationalism." In order to avoid such a possibility, I think it would be best if you fixed the "paragraph" since you have a more neutral approach towards solving this overall issue (plus it was your idea in the first place to break apart the "paragraph"). Overall, both Tsourkpk and myself agree with your critical review of the "paragraph" and would like for this dispute to end once and for all. Thank you for all of your help. Good luck in all of your endeavors. Deucalionite (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanian-Pelasgian connection it's to strong to be deleted nor to be one "theoretical connection". It's pathetic to pretend that this link is weak, in my opinion, deleting is uneducated, nationalistic, another Greek propaganda!--Taulant23 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Albanian-Pelasgian connection is so strong, then why isn't there any direct literary and archaeological evidence to support it? I am beginning to think that everything that does not coincide with your views Taulant23 is considered "Greek propaganda" to you. I think you are just upset because there is direct evidence supporting a Greek-Pelasgian connection while your endeavors have produced nothing substantial to support an Albanian-Pelasgian connection. I told you before that you need direct physical evidence in order to prove your case. I explained it to you in a very nice and respectful manner, and you still continue promoting questionable content onto articles. Even though I at first supported the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section, there is no denying the fact that other users are not convinced by its contents since there is a significant lack of reliable scientific evidence. Please reconsider your stance my friend because sooner or later your actions will force other users to not want to speak to you at all. Deucalionite (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Taulant23 is required to strictly adhere to WP:RS and WP:TALK if he wants to oblige other editors to even consider his stuff. Taulant23, go to these pages and study them on your own time, like a grown-up. People will not hold your hand while you reluctantly wrap your mind around them. Then come back with a solidly referenced paragraph in brilliant English. Misplaced Pages isn't free highschool tutoring for internet junkies. Deliver quality or be ignored. dab (𒁳) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. By the way, are you going to take care of the "paragraph" or should Tsourkpk go ahead and do it? This issue is getting out of hand and Pirro Burri just decided to racially discriminate all Greeks who do not support the Albanian-Pelasgian connection. Best regards. Deucalionite (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

don't be so delicate :oP "Pelasgian" isn't even a well-defined term,. All we know about Pelasgian is that it had words in -issa and -inthos. So, it is a patently empty claim to postulate an "Albanian-Pelasgian" connection. Pure Obscurum per obscurius (aka antiquity frenzy), not worth the excitement. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about being delicate? I understand that this whole issue is really not worth getting excited over. However, even you would agree that the nonsense associated with this specific non-issue has to stop before it gets worse. Nevertheless, I need to know whether or not you will follow through with your critical review of the "paragraph" (a "yes" or "no" answer would be nice). That's all. Regardless if the term "Pelasgian" is ill-defined (not surprising since the Pelasgians were not a perfectly unified unit), the Pelasgians article does not need unnecessary loose-ends. Deucalionite (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I do invite you to go ahead with the article along the lines discussed on the talkpage, you don't need to ask for my permission. Regarding this BURRI character, if he spouts more racialist nonsense, he'll just be blocked, no sweat, let's not be distracted by trolls. --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. I asked for your permission since it was your idea in the first place to break apart the "paragraph." Hey, I'm just giving credit where credit is due. That's all. Again, thanks for all your help. Bye. Deucalionite (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic Traditions revived as Indian Religion

Humming bird is playinga Havoc on Indian religions which he has redirected to Dharmic traditions.--Anish (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

he is reallly fishing for a block this time... dab (𒁳) 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya but check out this !!! This Dharmic (T)radition(s) is becoming a mess. By playing around with the capital letters and singular/ Plural wordings they have created following 3 articles to stick with their pet POV's. :

• Dharmic tradition - Disambig page
• Dharmic Tradition - Redirects to Indian religions#Common traits
• Dharmic Traditions - Redirects to Dharma

I think the consensus was reached on the first one. Something needs to be done on this one.--Anish (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, this is confusing. All the capitalisation variants should redirect to the dab page. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Nutcase

Another nutcase has vandalised Dharmic tradition. I suggest you protect the Disambig page for some time.--Anish (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lurs.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lurs.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mushroom (Talk) 08:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Index lists

Howdy. (Once more unto the breach.. ;) I was wondering if you could take a look at my hefty draft-summary at Misplaced Pages:Lists/Index lists. I'd appreciate your thoughts on:

• what the best way to discuss it is. (I'm currently planning on posting it at WP:VPP, and notifying everyone relevant I can find)
• how the draft could be improved or made clearer.
• and your initial thoughts on the issue itself, before I put it in front of a wider audience.

Much thanks. (reply wherever, I watchlist) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've removed the new-namespace-proposal thread, as it was only serving to distract (thanks to Francis' smart comments). I invite you to refactor your last sentence ("... either to Portal:, or to a newly defined Index: or Contents: namespace."), to eliminate mention of it, in order to keep things short/clear, so that I can post the entire thread to VPP. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thread moved to the Pump: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Turco-Mongol

Hi, is it possible for me to learn why you redirected the article Turco-Mongol to Altaic peoples? Of course, Turco-Mongols were Altaic as well, but the term refers to a specific society during the Middle Ages rather than a general identification. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• does it? Do you mean the Mongol Empire? All the more need for disambiguation. I am not sure about the "specific society" though. The "References" given just point to casual usage of "Turco-Mongol" in the context of the Mongolian Empire. The basic meaning is "Turkic and Mongolic". If there are, indeed, more specific meanings, this should by all means be mentioned on the disambiguation page. The important thing is that the page is a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mongol Empire and the sequel, including the Golden Horde and Timurid eras. I scanned the sources once again, what I can see is that they refer to specific eras rather than a generalization. And of course I should state that Altaic peoples do not solely consist of Turks and Mongols, so the term Turco-Mongol cannot be an equivalent of Altaic. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are also 63,000 Tungusic people. No, your references just say that the Mongol Empire happened to consist of both Turkic and Mongol tribes, they do not say that "Turko-Mongol" has a meaning of "medieval Mongol Empire" in particular. The "references" given are obviously just the result of a google books search for the term. If you insist, Turco-Mongol can be a disambiguation page separate from Altaic peoples, but I really fail to see a point in that since both will be practically identical in scope. dab (𒁳) 21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The number is not important. The fact is that the term Turco-Mongol does not suffice to correspond the term Altaic. But, I think you have right at one point. I gazed on the references once more. Even if the sources are based on specific eras, the related term is likely to be used as a general one. So, your last suggestion seems comfortable to me. Then, the disambiguation page you prepared is ok. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do specifically mention the term (and the "Turco-Mongol Empire") at Altaic peoples now. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 21:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. Just a quick request. It would be great if you could use the edit summary more often in your edits, especially more subtle ones, when you do redirects (need to explain why), and propose merges. Things can indeed be seen from the diff, but having an edit summary on one's watchlist can be very informative nevertheless. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

you are right. But I often have a complicated queue of edits to do in my head, with lots of open browser tabs, and I type tab-enter habitually for edits I deem uncontroversial. When I am aware that my edit may raise eyebrows, I always give a summary. But I accept your criticism. Especially when editing an article where I am not "known" to people watching, I should take more time to give a courtesy summary. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

I won't spam you with a bunch of code or pictures, just a simple thank you for your kind words and participation in my RfA. Thank you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Development of religion

I think that some of the material in Development of religion/Origins of religion is better suited in the article Theories of religion.

See my first try User:Andries/Theories_of_religion. I could use some help from you for that article if you have time.

Andries (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

looks good. Should perhaps be singular theory of religion per MoS, but this definitely has potential. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mithraic Mysteries

Hi. can you take a look at this article? I thought your edits on the now defunct Mithras article where fair, but our friend User:Fullstop is up to his old tricks again— this is the third time I've have to contact an administrator to deal with him. Thanks in advance. Fennessy (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Explaining the bot's behaviour

See here. The bot was worried about not being able to find a link back to the article (it fails to recognise redirects left behind by moves). The bot wasn't judging the rationale - they are not that clever yet. A similar case (missing colon after move), can be seen here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm currently reading "Inside Language - Linguistic and Aesthetic Theory in Tolkien" by Ross Smith, and in the series editor's preface, Honegger refers to the following 2006 paper: Dieter Bachmann and Thomas Honegger, "Ein Mythos fur das 20. Jahrhundert: Blut, Rasse und Erbgedachtnis bei Tolkien." Hither Shore 2:13-39. Is that you by any chance? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure the bot can be taught to just leave alone any image tagged with {{Non-free book cover}}. Yes, I co-authored that article. I was going to resurrect Tolkien and racism (deleted as OR last year) some time, and perhaps work on genetic memory, but I am spending far too much time on-wiki as it is. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

More advice

Okay, here's the thing 'Bachmann, your comment may have been in response to some serious trolling, I'm not even going to argue about that, cus I don't even KNOW, but your response is not hitting your mark. Okay? You end up lumping a lot of other people in, who aren't bad, and who don't live in "shit-holes" in to your attacks. You did the same thing with the Afrocentrism article. The way I see it, man, you're mostly making the right calls... but, the things you say and the way you come across ends up pissing off a whole lot of other people who just don't deserve it. Think about that. And then you end up with everyone against you, doing RfCs on your ass and complaining. Why not just avoid all that? Be a big man! Admit what you did wrong and defend what you did right. It's OK to admit that you overstepped the line a bit, you know? And if you really think it's OK to be racist then, I don't know, maybe you should think about that. It's not like the trolls "win" if you do that, in fact, the trolls are winning right now because with the way you attack people everyone feels sorry for them. I'm saying you've gotta keep the upper hand. I'm really trying to help you, man, but if you want to just blow me off... OK. Whatever. (And please don't move this off your user page, I want people to know that someone is trying to reach out to you and be nice about all of this. OK? So don't move it. I'm watchin' your page to see if you get any of this.) JJJamal (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

fine. How about you show your qualities in producing quality edits instead of lecturing me, and we'll get along just fine. I have not attacked anyone. I have no idea why you want to discuss a trolling incident dating to 2005 with me. I frankly have no idea what you want from me. You know what? I have been known to be very quick to apologize to people whom I gave cause for offence. I will not apologize to random people who go out of their way to find some political incorrectness in my edits because they find they have no case in an on-topic debate. I'll tell you something else: I resent the implication that I am a racist, when I am in fact one of the most active editors combatting racism on Misplaced Pages. If I was as much into bitching at people over offense taken, I would now pester you for the next three years or so to take that back. So, if you want to be "nice", you have a chance to apologize right now. If you insist that it is "racism" to ask that the same rules apply to everyone on Misplaced Pages, regardless of their ethnicity (that is: you need to deliver encyclopedicity, even if you insist that you are "ethnic" and thus the rules magically don't apply to you), I am happy to let you cherish your belief and be happy with whatever it is you are doing, but I would just ask you to stop posting to my talkpage, because you really have nothing to say I would want to hear. I am not interested in having general ethical or philosophical discussions with anyone happens to stumble on my talkpage and chats me up, pulling out random disputes of three years ago with which they have no involvement, and no background knowledge, whatsoever, even if they don't insult me first. I am nonplussed that you apparently think your elaborations are in any way useful or constructive. I'll assume good faith, but I am afraid that sufficiently advanced naiveté is truly indistinguishable from trolling, so I have no way of knowing which applies to you. This isn't relevant, since I am interested in neither. dab (𒁳) 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you will respond

In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration. WP:RFC

futurebird (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the page yet. You are right that people usually defend themselves in RfC's. I have defended myself against this sort of stuff many times over, and I consider it a waste of time to invest time in stating again what people can just read up in my talk archive. But I will certainly leave a note to that effect on the RfC page once I get around to have a look at it. People are of course free to submit anything they like to arbitration. I am not aware I am in breach of any policy. No, not even the famous WP:CIVIL if that is tempered by WP:UCS (as opposed to waved around as a red herring). I am dedicated to uphold high standards of encyclopedicity precisely in line with policy. If people don't like my tone or my character, I daresay I can say the same of countless accounts without spending time wikilawyering about it. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked it now. Wow. Quite a lot of nasty insults and character smearing. If I believed in whining about WP:CIVIL, I could go on for pages about it. I might consider asking for blanking of this page after closure due to calculated character assassination. So, futurebird, have fun in Bakaman's team, I suppose. If you should wish to resume encyclopedic editing, I'll still be here. But you can't side with Bakaman's "tag, you're an obnoxious racist" approach (why hasn't anyone permabanned this guy yet?) and expect me to take you seriously as an editor at the same time. dab (𒁳) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)