Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:23, 16 July 2008

generic {{talkheader}}:

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

Archives:

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 Feb 08 / 1F – 06:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

re:automated Wikiproject tagging

A question regarding Sayana and Madhava

ethnicity

i am glad to hear it! If you are not taking it personally, and don't find my comment especially interesting or useful, then you need not comment on it! Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian population

Hello dab, sorry to bother you, but I would like to know where you came up with these numbers for the Assyrian peoples population; "Iraq+ Syria ca. 0.5-2.5 million", the 2.5 million is way to high, and when I wanted to discuss them user:Chaldean said that it was you who came up with those numbers. This was the ref . Thank you. The TriZ (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet's Mill

Any particular reason you commented out that Puhvel quote? --Gwern (contribs) 01:00 6 June 2008 (GMT)

the reason is WP:SYN: the passage tried to scrape a point out of a completely unrelated discussion in the source quoted. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow; one of the main criticisms of the articles was that the authors were relying heavily on wrong, coincidental, or tenuous linguistic similarities and etymologies - which is exactly what that quote pithily summarized. --Gwern (contribs) 02:37 7 June 2008 (GMT)

Merge article

Can you please merge Thuya into Tjuyu please? The merge tags have been on both articles since December 2007. Its a repeat article on the same person but the Tjuyu article is more substantial. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

why didn't you do it yourself? --dab (𒁳) 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought only Admins could merge articles preferably after a long discussion. But the merge tag had been on both articles for 6 long months and nothing was happening. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians

Could you please join the discussion at Talk: Egyptians\Religions, names? Certain editors are insisting on including Ancient Egyptian in the intro autonym and infobox language sections.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Stereographic Projection Northern Hemisphere.png

An image that you uploaded, Image:Stereographic Projection Northern Hemisphere.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vinhtantran (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mannaz

Hi, dab. Regarding your quick reposting of the merge tag on the Mannaz page. I removed the tag because of consensus reflected on the Runic studies talk page. If you oppose, that does not help against the majority, please front your opinions on the correct page to seek a compromise. I would appreciate it a lot if you did not revert my edits when I have given very valid reasoning for my actions. I would rather prefer that you posted a message on my talk page telling that you disagree, instead of making an edit that could, in some cases, lead to an edit war. As I dislike heated articles and discussions, I will not revert your edit before we have talked this through. Have a good day, –Skadinaujo T•C 11:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is nearly a week since I posted the message above, and I would be happy to get an answer. Refraining from answering does not get rid of the issue. I will remove the tags without further conversation if you choose not to respond, I am fine with that. Qui tacet consentire videtur. –Skadinaujo T•C 14:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Patricianship

ie Patricians, but not the Roman ones. Any additions on the Swiss patrician classes very welcome, especially the nitty-gritty on how the constitutions which recognised a patrican class worked - or on anything else in the article. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Stereographic Projection Northern Hemisphere.png

The image had been tagged as a copyright violation, and looking at the site it appeared to be a copyrighted image. Sorry for the mistake; I've restored the image and given it a more descriptive PD tag. (ESkog) 07:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your view is requested

I was referred to you by User:Wikidas. Please take a look at my complaint about fringe theories and undue weight at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.

My original explanation to Wikidas was as follows:

Could you please take the time to look at Kalki? It is currently (in his own words) guarded by Ghostexorcist. And I don't have the experience to know how to make changes that don't get reverted. These are my concerns about it. See if you agree.

1. An inordinate portion of the article is devoted to subjects tangential to the Hindu concept under the heading "Modern variations of the Kalki prophecy." I think this title itself is a contradiction in terms. What modern variation of the prophesy is there in Hinduism? It might read "modern interpretations" but Ghostexorcist will not allow even this to be discussed.
2. The way the section is put together it gives the impression that the views of one author Savitri Devi Mukherji that Adolf Hitler was Kalki is a part of Hindu thought. By excluding other similar silly notions he puts un-due focus to that one idea, making Hinduism look morally baron.
3. By having this Nazi allusion follow directly after Alejandro Biondini, a Nazi in Argentina, Ghostexorcist is de facto insisting on giving the Kalki concept a nazi connotation and I can't understand his motive.
4. Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight holds that Misplaced Pages is not a repository for opinions that almost no one holds - such as that Hitler was Kalki - a view that apparently a single Hindu author who is now dead had. By insisting on having this rare opinion kept highlighted he gives the impression this is a genuine Hindu view by not saying it is not. This seems a clear case of "undue weight" as defined by Misplaced Pages.

What I was hoping is that you might know one or two experienced editors like yourself that could bring some weight to bear on that article. As it is it goes nowhere as all serious changes are reverted by Ghostexorcist who says he guards the article. Thank you for your time.

I have already replied at WP:FTN. I don't know about Alejandro Biondini, I have doubts about his notability too. I think you misunderstand WP:UNDUE: it does not state that "Misplaced Pages is not a repository for opinions that almost no one holds". For example, nobody believes in a flat Earth, and yet the topic still makes for a fascinating article. See also WP:TIGERS. Nobody here, I hope, believes that "Hitler was Kalki". It may still be interesting to document the idea, if sufficient notability can be established. A notion does not need to be widely held to be notable, otherwise most of our mythology articles would need to go. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I see I may have misunderstood the policty. It should be called "Non-notable fringe theories." (: But thank you for your attention and clean-up. I think it is much better. I half expect Ghostexorcist to immediately put back Alejandro Biondini. But thank you for trying. Vedantahindu (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I never received an alert that my edits were being discussed on the fringe theory board. However, having learned of it, I have posted a few comments. Thank you for your comments concerning my edits. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming dispute

Would you care to explain the reason for your proposed merge or do you just plan to stick a template on the page? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to British Isles naming dispute. The reason is in my edit summary: {{Duplication}}. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you'll see, from other contributors, that your reasoning is not well understood. Perhaps more than an edit summary is needed. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed on how to create a disambiguation page

Bireme I think really should be a redirect to Galley#Biremes and Triremes, but on the page it says "

" so I don't know what to do about that. Do you agree and how do I do it? Thanks,sorry if this is a pain. Doug Weller (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You should use {{redirect}} on Galley. You will get "Bireme" redirects here. For other uses, see Bireme (disambiguation). --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Iron pillar of Delhi

This page claims that the pillar formerly "served an important astronomical function". What's your opinion? --Ghirla 09:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A matter of {{tone}} (and {{fact}}), I'd say. dab (𒁳) 11:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So would I. Have you seen our page about Jiroft civilization? One has to be a crackpot to take that stuff seriously. --Ghirla 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on decrankifying the page! By the way, there's also an alleged Zayandeh River Civilization. --Ghirla 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I've prodded it. --dab (𒁳) 20:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New World Encyclopedia

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article New World Encyclopedia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn_Stalk 07:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly I'm a fascist

Is Linguistics on your watchlist? If not, it should be... things are getting amusing there. —Angr 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics, communication, and what amoebas call masturbation

This kind of discussion (for want of a better word) will go on forever if we let it. Should we continue to feed it? garik (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 16 June, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Constitution of Kosovo, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

- BanyanTree 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Majeston

He continues to call editors vandals in edit summaries, what's your advice? Ignore him, or? Thanks. One other question--what do you think about using the phrase 'scholarly consensus' in a lead (I'm thinking of the article where it is pretty clear a scholarly consensus has developed since 1994). Doug Weller (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"scholarly consensus" is a term often used in Misplaced Pages talkpage discussions. We need to avoid letting Wiki jargon seep into article space. If there is indeed a scholarly consensus, we can just state it in Misplaced Pages's voice, since this is what Misplaced Pages is built to reflect. If there is only a majority view, we can say "widely accepted" or "majority view". That we refer to scholarly discussion should be clear anyway (Misplaced Pages reports scholarly debate, not newsgroups chat, of course. Any non-scholarly "consensus" wouldn't even be worth mentioning. Majeston's edit warring should just be reverted. If there are enough sane editors, he will just keep running into 3RR. --dab (𒁳) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pro-American

I have nominated Pro-American, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pro-American. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nudve (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RajivLal (talk · contribs)

I know he has no case, but the sheer effort of reverting incessantly is tiresome. He will persistently assert that he has a case to create the appearence of debate. I've created a sockpuppet case, but of course he will just reappear in another persona asap. I don't know how to deal with this unrelentingly single-minded editing. Anyway, I'm off to Birmingham now. Paul B (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We have WP:3RR precisely for this kind of people. If they can't accept they have no case, they can just be reverted. They run into the 3RR, and the more childlish type will then create sockpuppets, be found out, and be blocked, case closed. A small percentage actually wisens up and plays by the rules. These cases really should solve themselves one way or the other. Have a safe journey. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I admire your optimism. The case was closed two months ago . Remember this? . But he's so far still getting his way. (train delayed!) Paul B (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I was convinced RajivLal was Thileepanmathivanan (talk · contribs) I'd indef ban him without further ado. I can see Rajiv's first edit is suspicious, but are we sure it's the same guy? Maybe run another checkuser? If this is just another sock, this will become another "Ararat arev" case (revert-ban the next sock on sight until the troll gets bored). I can't see this is worse than the Armenian trolling, and that didn't do any damage in the long term. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys - I too have been following Rajivlal aka Padan aka DWhiskaZ with increasing frustration (his edit wars, his obsession with linking Mohammad to the Bhavishya Purana), and frustrated not least of all to discover that he has such a long, long history of sockpuppetry (see here for instance). Surely in extremely obvious cases like this there must be something more that can be done.Jak68 (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

dab, why isnt it possible to ban User:Padan for sockpuppeting as Rajivlal (which Paul Barrow noted the evidence for in his report, especially the tag team editing by the two on the Bhavishya purana page and others) and for being linked with DwhiskaZ (DWhiskaZ who WAS banned; and who also edited the same pages (the Bhavishya Purana page in particular), also originated from Univ of Toronto, and also spread the same message on the same article pages using the same sources (in both cases that of the ahmadiyya activist Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, whose fringe theory Padan/Rajivlal has inserted in 2 dozen articles so far and continues to do so.) Note also that User:Padan/Rajivlal has since "edited" another dozen articles (mostly inserting meaningless things like blank lines) in order to give the impression of diversity in his contribs, so now you have to go back into the history of the contribs to see the meaningful (and insistent edit wars) over the Bhavishya, which no doubt he will return to again as he had in the past. Jak68 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am confident socks and master will be banned soon. There is an ANI thread and a checkuser request, and there will be results soon, no worries. dab (𒁳) 17:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi dab - fyi, rajivlal is continuing to freely edit the bhavishya purana page. I dont know what the timeline is like for the ANI and checkuser etc, but can you look into the status of this case? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak68 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism

I'm sorry for crossing your opinion Dab, but I don't see how my reinstating sources lead to the inevitable outcome of you placing a tag that is completely unjustified. Lets wait for the opinion of a third party before you place the tags. Trips (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I got an encyclopedia, a book specifically written on Hinduism, a primary source used by encyclopedias like Britannica, and national Geographic is reputed. The Bush analogy is totally irrelevant as these are as good sources as are required to support a very likely statement, and I'm not relying on popular opinion here.

Certainly some religions in remote areas are older, however Hinduism has survived the Semitic wave unlike the vast majority of these indigenous religions, and its worth noting that it is certainly 'one' of the oldest continuosly practiced religions. I don't see any scope for error here and its not an issue. The Vedas form the core of Hinduism, and if you reject the Vedas, you are not Hindu even today. The Vedas can be dated and therefore it is possible to judge Hinduisms age relative to other religions. Trips (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

what "Semitic wave"? You are not making sense. Please appreciate the points made. The Age of the Vedas dates Vedism, not Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 16:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If your alternative account is User:Relata refero, then damn you do a lot of editing, take a breather once in a while Dieter. Probably User:Rudrasharman too aye. Trips (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think Relata refero or Rudrasharman are my socks, I suggest you switch on your brain, or else make my day and submit a checkuser request. It is sad, rather, that users defending Misplaced Pages core policy have become so rare that they appear to be acting in unison or as meatpuppets of one another. OMG cabal!. The cabal keep a positive homepage up for everyone to see, the cheek! --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Im pretty sure of it, even through WP, you can make out personalities and editing styles that are the same. Its likely you use three accounts with different watchlists for each. Hilarious how you awarded yourself a barnstar though. Trips (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I deny all accusations. Please proceed to WP:RCU. dab (𒁳) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Supriyya again

I thought you might be interested to know that she's back, and now seems to be trying to turn the linguistics section of the language article into a rival to the linguistics article. #sigh# I'm too busy today to do anything much about it. garik (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image format

Do you know any format by which I can place the production of cigarettes graph at the end of the Effectiveness section in the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. I want to use the image at the end of the section, otherwise there remains a huge blank space. I tried to use <br></br> , but that results in a blank space between two paragraphs. I do not have enough skill on this, a change in the layout may improve the style. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to do exactly. If you omit the "thumb", the image will be inline,

there is also "gallery",

• Production of cigarettes in Germany from 1932 to 1944.

--dab (𒁳) 11:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dwaraka Kingdom

This page claims that the kingdom was "founded over 5,000 years ago" as "the brainchild of Krishna" and that "the ruins of ancient Dwaraka city were found under the sea following recent oceanographic studies". Your expertise is needed. --Ghirla 12:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

why is my expertise needed? It seems redundant to note that this is pure blatant nonsense. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your expertise is needed because in anything touching on India, when I see a ludicrous claim, I don't know how to change it for the better. It's the same with Tumulus culture (which I think looks rather strange) and Corded Ware culture (which cites the kurganization theory as "obsolete"). When I know what changes should be made I don't bother you. This is the case with Tyushtya. Still, I think you should take a look at the page if you want to have a good laugh tonight. --Ghirla 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

the question was rhetorical :) thanks for drawing my attention to this stuff. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Race of Ancient Egyptians

An RfC has begun for this article and I noticed that you may have some interest in this topic so I thought that I'd let you know. Thanks.--Woland (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reshep

Help! Dear Dbachman, Can you please sort out the major template clutter in the Reshep article? One of the 2 templates has to go but I don't which is more important. You would.

BTW, the final sentence at the bottom of this article states that "It is speculated that the character of Reshep is connected both to the Greek Apollo and to the Vedic Rudra" with a citation question mark attached. Unless there is evidence here, it may be someone's fringe/original theory and perhaps be deleted. You may know more on Reshep who seems to be a god in several places of the Near East. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Dbachman for your cleanup of Reshep. I didn't know which template was more important and what information was legitimate and what was fringe on this deity. It was the worst example of template clutter, I've ever seen. Reshep was a very complicated article with many different incarnations in various parts of the Ancient Near East. Thanks also for the footnotes. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

your edits

I suggest that you stick with the areas of your expertise, which is possibly extensive, instead of insisting on editing the articles on religion. It appears you have some strange views on religion, especially some forms of religion like for example Hinduism, which are complex subjects that are hard for people with little or no knowledge to comprehend. For these reasons a little knowledge is not much good, and is worst then no knowledge, and for you its better to stick closer to good sources, so that you will not come across as OR synthesizer. Wikidās ॐ 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

strange indeed. Lucky that I tend to back up my claims with academic references. You should do the same. You have created some decent articles on Hindu topics. If you can lay of the pious zeal and the antiquity-frenzy bullshit, your contributions can be useful. It is amusing to be called a "OR synthesizer" by someone who googles "oldest religion" and then gives an incoherent list on soundbites, never mind if it's "Hinduism for Dummies", hindutva.org, or the eminent Mr. Klostermaier. dab (𒁳) 20:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Apepi

Dear Dbachman, Could you please rename the article titled Apepi I to simply Apepi. There was only one Hyksos king Apepi/Apophis and he was succeeded directly by Khamudi, the last king of the Hyksos 15th dynasty. I tried to move it and gave this reasons "There was only one king Apepi/Apophis. He used 3 different prenomens in his reign: Auserre, Aqenenre and Nebkhepeshre" I gave academic citations for this claim. The move from Apepi I to Apepi was rejected and it suggested I contact an Admin. I am trying to change the title from Apepi I to Apepi so that other readers aren't confused into thinking there was an Aqenenre Apepi II, etc. Apepi I/Apepi simply used all these prenomens in his reign. This source by the Belgian Egyptologist Jacques Kinnaer chronicles Apophis' use of all three prenomens in his reign: It shouldn't be a controversial move. Can you do this? Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is Apep. Apepi needs to disambiguate. Maybe Apepi (pharaoh) or similar? --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Apepi (pharaoh) is fine. Can you do this please? It would end the confusion over Apepi I and Apepi II permanently. Thank You. Leoboudv (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks Admin Dbachman for your kind help in resolving the problem with Apepi. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics

Hi. Are you really of the opinion that "The study of language today broadly falls under structuralist and post-structuralist schools of thought"? I don't see this as being a very important division (in fact, it's not clear to me that post-structuralism plays much part at all in linguistics), and I don't think many other linguists would either. garik (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

uh, yes, I'm sorry, my revert may have been ill-advised. I do think the lead I reverted to contains a listing of central sub-topics that would belong there, and which got lost in your revert, but I probably didn't ponder the precise phrasing well enough. Feel free to revert for now, and I'll try to get back to this with some more time on my hands later. Regards, dab (𒁳) 13:55, 3 July 2008 (

No worries. I agree that useful stuff was lost in the revert, and I generally think the article needs a lot of work. But I'm cautious of putting too much effort in for the moment in case the article gets dragged into another debate about posts-structuralism etc. But I've edited the introduction now to try and keep the best of both versions. But yes, at some point, it needs a proper overhaul. garik (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems on Chechen people

Not sure I feel good about dragging you into another of those conflicts, but a user keeps on insisting on inserting tendentious material in the Chechen people article. It's not a great page and I haven't had that much to do with it except the etymology section (which is what alerted me to the monkey business). Quite apart from the question of the reliability of the sources he's provided, I followed the link to one of the references he gave (in Russian, of course) and it didn't check out. In fact it seemed to come to quite the opposite conclusion of what he was claiming (see the talk page for some details). He hasn't been forthcoming with an explanation of how this happened. In spite of this, he keeps reverting. He's probably violated WP:3RR by now, but I don't want to take the chance. Check his user page for a further possible clue to what's going on here. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of under control at the moment (although his attitude was "I make a mess, you should clean it up"). --Folantin (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back at it, replacing material I've begun to source with his own dubious, unverified stuff. (PS: There's also an unrelated fringy bit of folk etymology which another user is adding to the lead about "Nokhchi", the Chechen name for themselves, being derived from "Noah". See here for details . Not a problem as such, but I've asked for proper sources). --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at ANI for what it's worth . --Folantin (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Paleo-Balkan languages

Is Greek generally included in "Paleo-Balkan"? Cheers. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

European identity and culture

Hello dab. Your friend Muntuwandi has discovered European ethnic groups. He has now blanked the above section twice. I think you added it in the first place and he first claimed there was too much about America. I can no longer understand what he's trying to say. I wonder if you could help. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

He has also completely replaced Origins of religion with his own personal version. Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hah. Muntuwandi. He's going to rewrite the article into a piece how the Europeans came over from Africa, back in the Cro-Magnon days. dab (𒁳) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you admit it. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Khazar II (talk · contribs) reverted your merging of Moksha people to Mordvins, see . Khoikhoi 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see the numerous comments at Talk:Mordvins. Khoikhoi 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, please have a look at our discussion reg Mordvins. Article Mordvins cannot be finished. There is a contradiction. We have to discuss it and come to a conclusion to solve this problem. --Khazar II (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Apepi concerns

The creator of the image with the Apepi seal (Captmondo) has responded to your concerns about its authenticity here: It does say Auserre Apepi. Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Um...If your concerns have been satisfied, perhaps you might consider removing the cited concerned footnote on the seal of Apepi (pharaoh)? Just an idea. I think what was inscribed on the seal was Auserre, not Apepi/Ippi. Leoboudv (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mutuwandi and Manikongo

Check out Origin of religion. Mutuwandi got blocked for a month. Then, in his first edit since October, Manikongo reverts back to Mutuwandi's version piecemeal. Sockpuppet?--Berig (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Mordvins

My problems is you are just merging article Moksha (people) without saying a word no matter all information collected is lost. Why are you doing this? What is your problem? Pls comment--Numulunj pilgae 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw your comment at KhoiKhoi talk page. OK, pls suggest a way of discussing sources reliability, etc. Will continue on Mordvin(s) talk page. --Numulunj pilgae 07:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae (talk • contribs)

July 2008

Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to NPOV Sindhian (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

context: Talk:Hinduism. Sindhian actually makes my point for me: I was saying he prefers wikidrama and wikilawyering over actually investing encyclopedic work in article space. I rest my case, I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

cuneiform display problems

I think there is a technical error in the way cuneiform notation is being implemented in wikipeida. I've noticed the convention unicode|xxxxxx shows a lastresort font glyph and cuneiform|xxxxxx shows a sign. I made a few minor edits on the cuneiform articles. but I wanted to get your opinion before I do major changes. Maybe the way to go with this is to include a link for a free akkadian font download on every page where cuneiform is used.--Gurdjieff (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

the point of the {{cuneiform}} template is to select fonts known to support the cuneiform range. It should be updated as more such fonts appear (and may be dumped once such fonts become ubiquitous). Yes, we could create a helper template for cuneiform display problems, along the lines of {{RunicChars}}. --dab (𒁳) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

{{unblock|may I ask for the courtesy of pointing out where I am supposed to have violated the 3rr? I am constructively involved in various controversial articles, and I am not aware that I am involved in any actual edit-war at the moment. Slapping a blocking template on a talkpage without warning, and without reference to the actual rationale of the block is close to rogue-admin behaviour imho. Mistaken admin action upon a bogus report (see below). Also, in a case of a veteran user and admin who may have inadvertedly violated the 3rr in a complex edit, it may be preferable to point out the violation and ask the user to self-revert.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Block was reviewed by blocking admin and editor was unblocked Request handled by: Chrislk02 17:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently in response to Misplaced Pages:AN3#User:Dbachmann_reported_by_User:Sindhian_.28Result:_48_hour_block.29, which I can't make heads or tails of. I've asked Scarian about it. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

, , , and the fourth: . Four consecutive reverts on Hinduism. Scarian 16:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scarian, your diffs number two and three are actually the same. Note the "3 intermediate revisions not shown". You reacted to a bad-faith 3rr report by a known troll, which wasn't even formatted properly. Be careful with such cases please. I also recommend blocking Sindhian (talk · contribs) over WP:DISRUPT, WP:WL. Not just for the bad faith report, but also for his unacceptable behaviour at Talk:Hinduism. Furthermore, there is a certain probability of sockpuppetry, seeing how this "newbie" manages to trick newbie admins with rigged diffs. But I suppose a disruptive editor should be blocked regardless of whether they are also a sock of a banned user's. --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

These diffs are still pretty confusing, but this and this (Scarian's diffs one and two) are consecutive and thus don't fall under 3RR. This block appears to be a mistake, and should be undone. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me have a look here. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I reccomend unblocking here personally. I looked through the diffs and while it may have hte makings of an edit war, I do not see a particular 3RR violation. Maybye I am looking at them wrong? However, DAB is an experieced editor who in my opinion has acted in good faith. A block without a warning does not seem appropriate to me? Chrislk02 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I concur that there should have been a warning, I note that this page is semi-protected, which would preclude a new or anon user from issuing such a warning. I trust in dbachmann's experience that he is aware of the 3RR policy, though. See below, as well. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The four diffs listed are all from today, and at these times:

10:45 (UTC)

10:56 (UTC), and includes the 10:45 edit

11:06 (UTC), and includes both the 10:45 and 10:56 edits, as well as an unrelated edit from Wikidas

11:11 (UTC), and includes the 10:45, 10:56, and 11:06 edits, as well as three other edits from Wikidas.

Based on that analysis, I don't see three reverts. The single edits did revert some material, but also seemed to show an attempt to address concerns raised by other editors. The 10:56 edit, for example, expanded a previously reverted description and tied it to a source. I'm sorry, Scarian, but I'm not seeing a violation here. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on scarians page asking him to stop by here and re-review. If he does not stop by in a timley manner, I will be willing to lift this block as a mistaken block. I however want to give scarian time to review it himself. Chrislk02 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked you, Dab. I do apologise for any inconvenience caused to anyone. In regards to your unblock statement, I am definitely not a rogue admin :-) - It appears as though there was reverts but I have mistakenly blocked thinking it was a, relatively, clear-cut 3RR vio. My apologies. Scarian 17:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann is a reasonable guy, right? Rather than relying on technicalities and handing out templates and blocks, why not engage in actual discussion? If Dbachmann had been reverting excessively, he might have self-reverted if he'd been asked. This block doesn't seem sensible to me, regardless of whether the 3rr was technically violated. Friday (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What Friday said. Scarian is the same admin who blocked me for 3RR without bothering to do any background research. --Folantin (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The grudge does not make you feel easy. Let it go. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take the poet's advice: Хвалу и клевету приемли равнодушно / И не оспаривай глупца. --Folantin (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The poet? I guess you're referring to Pushkin, the most famous Russian poet in the world. Otherwise, you better say who is and just write down the Russian passage to English. I don't know whether the Google translation tool works good on the language, but Opera project needs your Russian ability much. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Pushkin. The basic gist is "Let it slide". "Opera project needs your Russian ability much" Actually, our Russian opera coverage is already pretty good (much of it thanks to User:Meladina - sadly no longer around, I believe). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's over and done with now, Friday. I've apologised and admitted that I made an error. So don't jump on the bandwagon please, sweetheart. Folantin: Your block was fully justified, so don't try and take an opportunity to take a dig at me, please. :-) Scarian 17:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No bandwagon here. You did the right thing- you unblocked. I'm just saying in the future more reliance on actual communication and less on technicalities and templates would be good. Friday (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good advice in any circumstance, but I have to note that Scarian, despite having 8 different users questioning the block, has been quite professional and reasonable in both discussing the block and in unblocking, so yay team. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ultra here. I think this is an example of how the system does work properly in these situations. I think all parties involved have handled this very well. kudos all around. Chrislk02 17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is a good example of why many people are so eager to become an admin.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. I accept Scarian's apology, of course. The "rogue admin" is struck out. Let's just try to learn from this, in various ways. Such as, don't accept malformatted 3rr reports. Consider asking experienced user to self-revert if it appears they were tricked into 3rrvio in the course of a complex series of edits. And finally, can we make use of the attention this has generated to do some actual admin work, involving good judgement, and review Sindhian's career here on Misplaced Pages? I do insist that this account isn't what we are looking for in editors. On less lenient wikis (other than en), such a user would have been permabanned long ago as an obvious troublemaking misfit with no interest in building a 'pedia. thanks. --dab (𒁳) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up here dab. Sindihan has tried to revive this as WP:AN. I left him a warning about his disruptive behavior. Chrislk02 18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! For you I'll invent a self-reverting Survival Star.Rokus01 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

of course, the trolls would prefer that incidents are not resolved with common sense and circumspection. Which is precisely why admins should try to do precisely that, and be selected for their capability of doing so. --dab (𒁳) 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New thread on AN

There is yet another thread about you on AN, by the same user. Just thought you might want to be informed. — _Maggot 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(rolleyes) I can't believe nobody has permabanned this chap yet. --dab (𒁳) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Modism

Hi Dieter,

I noticed that you reverted my edit on Modistae. The term "Modism" is another name for that movement. This fact is apparant in the title of the last book in the reference section: A Pragmatic Approach to Language in Modism. Would you mind if I readded the term to the lede?

Neelix (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

well, sure. My point is that the Modistae are the Modists, while Modism is the name for the movement, not the individual members. I have not reverted your edit as such, I have corrected the identification of Modistae=Modism as synonyms. --dab (𒁳) 16:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Faith cited as Fact

Difficult, isn't it... The same sort of thing is happening at Septuagint. Jheald (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pristina Edit

Talk:Pristina#Republic_of_Kosova_to_Republic_of_Kosovo

I made an editprotect request and Sandstein said no. I asked him if I could have another admin who knows Kosovo consensus and articles to make the edit. He said yes. Will you take action Dab? Beam 20:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, can I call you Dieter? You can call me Beam. Beam 20:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it. If you don't let me call you Dieter, I'm going to file an AN about your constant incivility and assholenes. Be warned...Dieter! mwahahahahah Beam 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

oh dear, I'd better let you call me Dieter then :op --dab (𒁳) 07:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dating the Bible

Actually what many people forget is that without rabbinic chronology there wouldn't be much to comment on because Greek and Latin chronologies take a lot of assuming also. All I'm trying to do is include the data from the cultural context pertinent to the article. If someone doesn't agree with it they can add suitably references text in the article on textual criticism--Meieimatai 10:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Race and crime

That was rude of me, I apologize. I did not notice that your edit right before mine had also added the merger template, and somehow jumped to the conclusion that it was old and the target article had been deleted. Anyway, I opened up a discussion section here. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

no problem :) --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unicode chart Linear B

Template:Unicode chart Linear B has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Octra Bond (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Broad homeland hypothesis

Hello dab. Your scholarly friend Rokus01 seems to have added very strange content to this article. His statements about J.P. Mallory seem incorrect. I am not knowledgeable at all in this area, but what Rokus01 has written seems at odds with the account in Chapter 26 on the Homeland Problem in The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006) by J. P. Mallory, D. Q. Adams, Pages 442-482 (viewable on www.amazon.com). At the end of this chapter a 2002 article of J.P. Mallory, explaining the Steppe theory, is cited. The article is "Indo-Europeans and the Steppelands: The Model of Language Shift", Proceedings of the 13th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Washington Institute for the Study of Man, Pages 1-27. Is this not the Kurgan hypothesis which Rokus01 claims is not widely accepted? (I am still trying to understand Rokus01 sentence "Agnostic of an intense mutual cultural interrelationship throughout this broader region, ..." I have tried using google to translate this into Dutch and then back into English, but so far it hasn't helped.) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rokus is trying to hide his pov-pushing behind contorted arguments. I am not sure who he is doing this for, since even if he should succeed, the result is so cryptic that he cannot hope for any audience that would actually read his stuff. He is doing this consistently, and intelligently. His "mistakes" only ever go towards one implication, the discrediting of the "steppe" origins of PIE. I guess you are doing him too much credit to actually try and figure out where he has hidden the fallacy this time. He has shown he is unwilling to edit honestly time and time again, and the burden to show that his stuff is valid clearly lies on him by now. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page. There does seem to be some misrepresentation of Mallory's views in the article. Mallory seems to be in favour of the Kurgan hypothesis but gives a very balanced account of how academics use both archaeology (particularly traces of flora and fauna) and linguistics to examine the various hypotheses. It is hard to find this out from Rokus01's article. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mallory is one of the main current proponents of the KH. As any bona fide scholar should, he is up front about weighing the hypothesis' strengths against its weaknesses. Fringe scholars, and non-scholarly pov-pushers and trolls, of course, will pounce on the weaknesses of the mainstream view and tout the (supposed) strengths of their own view, while trying to hide the powerful strengths that makes the mainstream view the mainstream view in the first place, and the glaring holes that make the fringe view the fringe view. Rokus has been doing exactly that for more than a year now, and I don't think his show is remotely interesting any more at this point. --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant hoax

Can you delete this (Acheron Parthenopaeus) as a blatant hoax? It's simply our biography of Lucian copied and pasted under the name of a non-existent Greek writer. I've read WP:CSD but I don't think I'll tag it myself because I don't want to have to explain to some ignorant admin at great length why this is patent nonsense. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. BTW, you might be interested in - re the Rydberg stuff. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Long section on history of litanies

Hi, I noticed that we are both improving the litanies page. What do you think of that very long history section? It seems to need much help - I was going to delete most of it, but was not sure. What do you think? You may have inserted that initially, so if you want to shorten it please do, else I may delete most of it to make it look better. But I will wait until you decide what is best for it. Cheers History2007 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just the CathEnc text. As such, a high quality encyclopedic piece dating to 1913. We should definitely keep it, wikify it, and expand it further. dab (𒁳) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is encyclopedic, but in my opinion pretty dated and I think probably 3 people will read it all word for word in 4 years unless it is really cleaned up. I can not bebothered to read it all! If you feel like cleaning it up, please do. The problem with CathEnc is that it is hardly read by the modern crowd because of the way it is written. Anyway, I will leave it up to you. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

well, the audience of the Marian litany article is probably rather limited in any case. We should not look towards maximizing readership, but towards presenting the highest possible quality to whatever readers the article does reach. That said, we do not need to keep the CathEnc text word for word, it being preserved elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine with me. Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pristina

Talk:Pristina#Republic_of_Kosova_to_Republic_of_Kosovo

Please go and take care of that edit. I spoke to Sandstein and he said I could ask an admin who has knowledge regarding consensus and etc. Help me Dieter. Beam 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I now can goto sleep, I was waiting up all night for you to finally help me. Ok, that's a lie, but now at least I get to have sweet dreams of Dieter helping me... :D Beam 07:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

seriously, Beam, you should internalise the old wiki wisdom of "there is no deadline". It doesn't matter if an article takes its good time before it becomes stable, and a few hours more or less certainly don't matter at all. --dab (𒁳) 07:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, to a point. But that sounds like a lazy person invented it. If everyone took that o heart no article would ever be improved, and this would just be a message board. Beam 12:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Family Do's and Don'ts

Do you know any book that talks about Family dos and don'ts that talks about, "What to actually do when you have a tricky situation". The book must refer to verses in Vedas and Explain them (If logical).

Why we normally have disputes in a house? The reason is simple, because we have a new problem (tricky situation) and we do not know how to solve that. So, do you know any book that talk about many of common family problems, with their solutions?BalanceΩrestored 09:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

try WP:RD. If you want to learn about genuinely "Vedic" domestic life, try the Grhyasutras. Vedic India was a hardcore patriarchal society, and hence any "common problems" would probably have been solved by beating the wives and children until morale improved. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dab BalanceΩrestored 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hypocrite, apply that to yourself. Trips (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

you have violated the 3RR.

• on Indigenous Aryans:
• on Purushottam Nagesh Oak .

Revert yourself or face the consequences. Worse, you have started a revert-war, blanking content without giving any justification whatsoever on talk. dab (𒁳) 15:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar from Bhadani

		The Socratic Irony Barnstar
		For Skilled and Eloquent Irony. In a somber moment of deep self-reflection, Socrates summed up the entire Misplaced Pages editor experience in his final words which he posed as a question: "I drank what?" --Bhadani (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You are a strange man, Mr. Bhadani. dab (𒁳) 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You have correctly de-cyphered a part of my personality. Having said this, I may add that there should be a place for a little fun in human life. I have seen your work for more than three years, and I would like to put it on record that I hold you in very high esteem and admire your patience and tenacity in dealing with a variety of nonsense here including provocations hurled at you. I admire and congratulate you for your value addition here ... Dear Dab, in case, I have ever hurt you in any way, please forget that ... I really admire you! Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you for this sincere message. Let me assure you that while I may have noted your "strangeness", I have never filed you away as malicious or disruptive. As to myself, I think my competence in dealing with provocations, and my skills of second-guessing insincerity and bluffing have greatly profited from my wiki activity, also in my real life. While on the other hand self-confidence built on a happy reasonably successful private life and martial arts practice enable me to remain equanimous in the face of frustrations and provocations on-wiki. In this sense, I feel I have managed to make Misplaced Pages a meaningful exercise (intellectual, social and spiritual) forming part of my real life without succumbing to the dangers of obsessing over it. Best regards, --dab (𒁳) 07:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, you enjoy shoving policy in people's faces. Admit it! Beam 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I must, at some twisted level of unconsciousness. At least, if I had a dime fore every time I've pointed people to WP:RS or WP:DUE or WP:ENC with angelic patience, or Socratic assholism as the case may be, I suppose I could quit my day job :) dab (𒁳) 13:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me run this scenario by you. Some asshole, say like me, makes an edit at an contentious article you've worked months on getting consensus. You revert it. I call you a name. You drop policy after policy in my face from NPOV to Civility. I call you more names. You revert me again, I revert you. You again chastise me as a little baby who doesn't understand policy. I go into your contribs and revert 10 things you've done. I get banned. You don't enjoy that? Really? Yes you do, YOU LOVE IT, you revel in the pain of others. The pain caused by your quick wit and adept understanding of policy. And not on some bullshit unconscious level either. I know it, and you know it. Beam 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everybody's wired the same. El_C 13:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) But Dab is definitely like that. I've worked with him in the exact situation I've described. As both the asshole as well as the NPOV defender. Beam 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not enjoy trolls. I do enjoy that Misplaced Pages works in spite of the trolls. But what keeps me around is the interaction with intelligent editors from whose expertise I can learn. The trolls are background noise and need some swatting from time to time, but Misplaced Pages wouldn't be worth anything if it was just about chasing infantile morons. It's unique because of the hard-working, intelligent, educated users. Big surprise: it's probably to do with it being an encyclopedia project. People who aren't here for the 'pedia become wikilawyers or admins playing power games at best, or they just get bored and fade out otherwise. dab (𒁳) 13:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That goes without saying. But as you say, the enjoyment comes from "Misplaced Pages work in spite of the trolls" which I know you enjoy, as do I. Beam 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the joy that's in a troll blocked is comparable to the joy of a slight cramp fading. You could well do without such joys of relief if that meant doing without the bother in the first place. Besides, come on Beam. Policy isn't that difficult to understand. Anyone with near-average intelligence can spend ten minutes reading the core policy pages and understand what this is all about, and I will not have any advantage on them because I "know policy". --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

btw, I have admitted to "temporal assholism" because I've just created the The No Asshole Rule redirect. Apparently a sort of WP:DICK proposed in "real" literature. This Sutton man appears to possess a good deal of common sense, and I say so even though I'm not really into "management science" at all. I do, of course, pay close attention to direct my assholism (if any) towards assholes exclusively. If I realize that I've given a dose of assholism to an innocent party, I am quick and sincere in apologizing. Of course I make mistakes. I even feel the bile rising in bad cases of admin assholism (of which there are fortunately still very few blatant cases, but hey, we have 2000 admins now, which by the nature of humanity must include some 200 chronic jerks at least; I like to call this the "10% rule of anthropological assholism"). At the first sign of emotional involvement, I call it a day and come back to the case at a later time. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Cradle of civilization

{{uw-3rr}}

You ignored my request for information why sourced information was removed on food production, an indispensable precondition to civilization. Rokus01 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

hah, are we feeling malicious today, Rokus? :op In my humble opinion, "food production" is necessary but not sufficient for civilization, much like breathing, language, social interaction and dancing. Discussion of the Neolithic Revolution belongs on Neolithic Revolution. Contrary to your claim, I have not "ignored your request", but unlike your seeming preference for communication by edit summary and warning templates, have left a note on the article talkpage. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Ancient history}}

Thanks for the cooperation on editing this ... J. D. Redding 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you for not insisting on your original revision. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mujahideen54

Hi Blnguyen -- is there any record regarding the Mujahideen54 (talk · contribs) case? Any checkuser case, any blocking template? You seem to have blocked RefuG (talk · contribs), but I didn't catch you documenting anything anywhere. I would be interested if there is any "main" account here. Regards, dab (𒁳) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well because I have checkuser I just did it myself without having a formal request lodged because I thought from the way Mujahideen54 was acting on talk pages he was a bad-hand account for stirring up debate on talk pages, or a banned user trying to cause distractions. And it came up with about 80 overlapped socks. I didn't notice yesterday, but one of the socks I found was Padan (talk · contribs) who was already blocked as a sock of RajivLal, and when I followed the SSP page it said that he was a sock a Thileep.... but looking at Thileep's old writeup, yeah, the IP range is definitely him. Mujaideen is Thileep. But I didn't tag all 80 of them because I thought it's a waste of time. But you can add {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} if you want. It took me about 45 minutes just to block all of those jokers...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Finno-Volgaic languages

Hey, I noticed you reverted my page move at Finno-Volgaic languages. I see what you're saying, sort of. My question is, how should we change the first paragraph of Finnic peoples? Should we change it to "Volga Finns, speakers of Finno-Volgaic languages", or leave it as it is? Khoikhoi 02:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see Volga Finns. Khoikhoi 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Mordvins starts out with "a people who speak languages of the Volga-Finnic (Finno-Volgaic) branch of the Finno-Ugric language family." Khoikhoi 04:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)