Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aksi great (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 25 March 2007 (Hkelkar socks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 March 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Weird:

You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

As you may remember, there was discussion of moving the page. Although several editors supported the move, there was not that many commentators. So I've listed it as proposed move and in the Village Pump and have opened up an informal poll. I'm not sure if you care either way but as you took part in the earlier discussion, I thought you may be interested in clarifying your views in the new discussion. Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Requested move Cheers. Nil Einne 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Indigenous Aryans. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

An article that you worked on

Canton of Oberland

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Canton of Oberland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. Zazzer 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speed of light article dispute

Hi,

Could you have a look at the Speed of light article and the discussion? An editor in Hungary has decided that a formula is wrong and resents my efforts to clarify matters. He may have been the one who recently blanked the article. At least he has promised to make trouble.

Thanks. P0M 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam through images

Check this out. Clearly the intent is to shill this "Himalayan Academy" outfit. Don't know what to do about this (if anything?) I found it only because the user added a ridiculously sappy image to the Vedas page. rudra 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens with Himalayan Academy Publications (talk · contribs), who has created the San Marga page, and linked to it from Saiva Siddhanta. The idea here clearly is to use Misplaced Pages to publicize this "instant karma" outfit in Hawaii: how do Lemurian scrolls grab you?:-) Perhaps an AfD for the San Marga page (on grounds of unencyclopedic content and non-notability of subject) would be in order? rudra 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to overhear your conversation, but I also have noticed this flurry of promotional activity. I just removed the link to the San Marga page from the Saiva Siddhanta because it does look to me that this is part of a systematic spam campaign of some sort. The pictures have been showing up on some pages I keep on my watch list, which is how I first noticed this. I do think that the people doing it are probably sincere, however, and so this seems a bit different from the usual crass spamlink. Perhaps they just do not know about the spam guidelines, and some friendly outreach may be in order before lowering the boom. Buddhipriya 03:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

of course. They are offering their images as it were, and it is up to a case-by-case evaluation if they contribute to the each article. I don't think the images are very enclopedic, but they may have some uses as illustrations in some cases. Nothing terrible is happening. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lemurian scrolls, huh? Misplaced Pages really never ceases to amaze :) dab (𒁳) 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hypothetical Indo-European subfamilies

Hi Dab. You removed the link to Centum-Satem isogloss that I had added in the previous edit. While it may not be an IE subfamily within itself, I concluded that since each subfamily is classified according to whether it falls into or between these two groups, the classification is notable. Based on this, I would like to keep the link within the template. Please tell me what you think. Regards, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

it is an isogloss, yes, but from the very beginning it was recognized as not phylogenetic, so that the isogloss has really nothing to do with "hypothetical subfamilies". You could extend the template to include various isoglosses, I suppose, but as it is, the link is really not at home in the template. dab (𒁳) 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. My original point was that it was an isogloss that seperated the subfamilies in question, but you have a point about it not actually fitting in with the subfamilies. OK, we'll keep it out of the template. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Germanic Pagans

I've finished working on that article, at least I hope so. I would appreciate you comment, if you have time. -Zara1709 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection

It used to be called "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts" but Kennethtennyson, for reasons which utterly escape me, moved it to its present title.

If you want to move ahead with the merger, I suggest you get MichaelMaggs involved.

Frankly, given my druthers, I would just delete both articles and restore the pertinent sections of "Shaolin Kung Fu" and "Bodhidharma" to this and this version, respectively.

Merci vielmals!
JFD 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There's a book scheduled to come out sometime this year, The Shaolin Monastery by Meir Shahar. Some of the material in the book has already been published as articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, and once it comes out, it will be the only truly scholarly and comprehensive treatment of the subject.

We should probably do what we can now, with the caveat that we'll probably have to do much of this work all over again once the book comes out.

Freedom skies has used your merge tag on "Bodhidharma..." to accuse me of "ethrocentric Chinese bias".

Could I trouble you to clarify the situation at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence?

JFD 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vielen dank. Can you believe that Freedom skies called me "ethrocentric"? That's rot furry. JFD 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You, sir, are an obvious sock of an undercover Chinese ethlocentrist! And a pathetic one at that, you cannot even spell your r's properly! dab (𒁳) 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't Bakaman told you? There's no such thing as sockpuppets. JFD 13:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

no, BakaSUPRman has kept me out of the loop again :( no such thing as sockpuppets? What then? Only the finest Astroturf, I expect? dab (𒁳) 13:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of socks, say hello to Joe Carrara. JFD 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Socks of Maleabroad

I don't recall if you have been involved in dealing with the various socks of User:Maleabroad or not. A very active new one as User:Randomatom001 is under discussion at User_talk:Abecedare#Socks, User_talk:Aldux#Sock_puppets, and here. We gave tagged he user page as a suspected sock of Maleabroad twice, but he has removed both tags. If you have nothing better to do can you take a look? I include you in the loop only because you may have prior knowledge of Maleabroad's editing patterns. Buddhipriya 16:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism origin

Can you weigh in on this discussion (and its precursor) ? The question is basically, whether "Hinduism originated on the Indian subcontinent" is correct, or whether there is support for saying that it originated in the Arctics. I'll also ask Rudra for his opinion. Thanks. Abecedare 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

in the arctics? I am sorry but this is hardly worth spending time on. Hinduism by definition originated in India. dab (𒁳) 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with dab here. The (partial) artic origin of Hinduism in my experience is limited to two people, User:Aupmanyav and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The main page should only deal with mainstream ideas. In this particular instance, both Western academics and Hindu devotees for once agree about something broadly speaking so continuing such a discussion IMO is futile. Gizza 09:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

well, as Buddhipriya points out on the discussion page, quoting Mallory, the "Arctic" stuff has notability beyond Tilak,

"Tilak's 'polar theory' for Aryan origins was not a bizarre quirk of a single individual but rather the culmination of an extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth ... A modern review of this 'northern cycle' of myths can be found in Bongard-Levin (1980) who argues that Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Scythian traditions (and by cultural contact also Greeks) all shared a common mythology of a northern mountainous land which, he argues, could only have been acquired in their prior common home on the Pontic-Caspian steppe."

this doesn't change the fact that this is mostly confused nonsense, but it is confused nonsense which can itself be the subject of encyclopedic discussion (Theosophy, Nordic theory, etc. etc.) dab (𒁳) 09:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

request for Arbitration

Dab, I have requested arbitration to resolve our dispute Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#User:DBachmann. Please provide your input in the appropriate section.Sbhushan 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to, even though Sbhushan's arbcom listing appears to mischaracterize certain small details such as previous steps in DR process, the nature of the dispute, etc. I think even though one Arbcom member has listed this as a content dispute, it certainly might be viewed as a behavior issue among the other parties - something which might be good to get out of the way. -Stevertigo 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Women in warfare timelines

I noticed that you did some work on the women in warfare timelines. While I'm glad to see that you've taken an interest in the subject, I must object to your expounging of legendary women in war. I have made it very clear on the timelines that the women are legendary and that the dates I placed for them are merely estimates of times that they may have lived. I think that they should be included for the sake of exhaustiveness. Also, the information in the paragraphs that you've added to the top of articles would be better placed into the timeline itself, along with dates accompanying the events you describe, such as the Battle of Bråvalla.I'm not trying to give you hard time, of course, I just wanted to give you some constructive criticism. Asarelah 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm sorry I made a mess. My main objective was to clean up the Amazons article. Feel free to deal with the timelines articles as you see fit, I just felt it was necessary that the material I removed from the Amazons articles should show up in the edit history of the "women in warfare" articles. I do think it would be good to have some coherent prose for each period rather than naked timelines, but I'm not going to interfere any further, feel free to either revert or incorporate stuff as you see fit. regards, dab (𒁳) 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I wasn't expecting you to do all that, but I'm genuinely grateful that you did. I have never seen a sockpuppet smacked down with such undue haste. JFD 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting that unhealthy boost when provoked, I know :o/ dab (𒁳) 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rig Veda bibliography

Thanks for collaborating on the update to the Rig Veda editions. It is likely that some of the source details that I am adding from other places may conflict with details that you are aware of. I am working from printed bibliography sources here, so if you spot cases where you have additional or different information I suggest that you add rather than revert any sourced changed that I make. You may also want to add fact tags to any that you think may be wrong and then we can check them together over the next week. I am noticing some dating issues that may be due to reissues or reprints, for example. It will be nice to get this updated by working together. Buddhipriya 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, I see no problems so far -- I just didn't want to have two sections titled "Translations", listing them once is enough. Keep up the good work, dab (𒁳) 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I had not finished the changes I was making while I had the "Construction" tag on, but I see that you have chosen to work on the issue about editions versus translations before I had finished. That's fine, I will abandon work on the article pending completion of your work. I would prefer that you not remove the references that I am adding, and simply add additional variants, so we can get a variant list established. We can then smooth out any issues with variants as another step. My plan was to finish adding what I had as new material and remove duplicates, which is why I put the Construction tag on. Buddhipriya 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

don't be insulted, I was merely pointing out mistakes you were making. I didn't remove any of your references, but it appeared you didn't understand what you were doing. To begin with, an edition and a translation are two completely different things. Then, Elizarenkova published excerpts in 1972, and a full translation in portions 1989-99. There is nothing wrong with your references, but you seem to have difficulties recognizing them for what they are. No problem, it's a wiki. dab (𒁳) 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Tigris

I just wanted to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Tigris is simply Ararat arev's sockpuppet. The behavior matches perfectly. Khoikhoi 01:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Tigris (talk · contribs) is a sleeper sock with its first edits back in April 2006, while Ararat arev (talk · contribs) only became active in December 2006. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My revert

I'm sorry if your edit was intended to contribute to the page artificial limb, but the edit you made does not make sense. You changed:

"The first artificial limb discovered was found in a tomb in Capua, Italy, dating to 300 BC and was made of copper and wood"

to read:

"Mytholgically referred to in the Rigveda, the "iron leg" given to Vishpala by the Ashvins, the first artificial limb discovered archaeologically was found in a tomb in Capua, Italy, dating to 300 BC and was made of copper and wood."

Thus, you seem to be claiming that an ancient iron leg referred to in 3000+ year-old ancient Indian texts, was in fact constructed 2300 years ago of copper and wood, and turned up in an Italian tomb. I see no other way to read what you wrote. Since this statement is obviously impossible, not to mention a run-on sentence, I labeled it "incoherent" and noted that it could have been intentionally malicious. If it was not, I apologize. Rustavo 02:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how you could get such an impression. I agree the sentence is a bit "run-on", you would be free to silently clarify the obviously intended reading by separating the statement into two sentences. I wouldn't dream of claiming even that there ever was a 3000+ year-old "iron leg", hence the "mythologically". dab (𒁳) 10:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Hindutva pseudoscience consists of an unencyclopaedic term: "pseudoscience". It is neither a branch of study in history, nor anything. If anything, it should be "Hindutva science" or "Hindu science" or something, in that article, under sections "criticisms", or "false claims", or "use by Hindutva proponents" you should discuss what you are planning to. Being something is encyclopaedic, not-being something is not.--Scheibenzahl 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You will note that we have an entire Category:Pseudoscience, and that our pseudoscience gives a reasonable, well-referenced outline of the topic. So, no, you are wrong, sorry. There are citeable academic definitions of what qualifies as pseudoscience. The topic is also discussed on Indigenous Aryans itself, with Sokal's paper giving an in-depth analysis of the connections of political radicalism, religious fundamentalism and pseudoscientific babble in Hindu nationalism. dab (𒁳) 16:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of Hindutva pseudoscience before. I don't disagree that some people are using false claims. But I want to draw your attention to the fact that history is not science. It uses many scientific methodologies but it is at the end, speculation, unlike palaeontology, for example. Hindutva pseudoscience as a term does not exist and should not be coined on Misplaced Pages. Please stop pushing for your point of view as if it is academic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheibenzahl (talk • contribs)

Retaliatory tactics

Hello sir, Please avoid retaliatory tactics against me for the AfD nom by tagging my page. Since you are an administrator, there is a clear conflict of interest in falsely accusing me when I point out your biases regarding this matter. I request that you participate in this AfD without attacks, incivility or turning wikipedia into a battleground. Birdsmight 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have identified you as a sock ten days ago, Hkelkar, I just couldn't be bothered to tag your page. It is people with characters like yours that turn wikipedia into a battleground, sadly. Your tactic against my alleged bias would be to cite academic sources to straighten it out, just like I was forced to dig for academic sources. Since you cannot do that, you indulge in trolling and sockpuppeteering. Which really reinforces my position: if there was bona fide material to hold against it, you could just do that instead. dab (𒁳) 22:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think this way. I do not wish to edit-war or stoop to this level so I won't respond in the way that you do. Your falsely accusing me while I detail your biases is an indication that you are abusing your reputation and powers to silence your detractors. Your post does not change the issue of POV forking off of multiple articles. Birdsmight 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar socks

Hi Dab. You will be interested in this. Do inform me if you suspect anyone else of being an Hkelkar sock. Dmc has blocked some University of Texas IPs. Let's hope that we don't see any more of Hkelkar for a few days. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)