Misplaced Pages

The user is adding fringe theories, I reverted him on both articles. --Mardavich 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you fooling yourselves here? I said the 8 or 9 unique sounds from the total 38 sounds in Armenian is "not found in any of the other" Indo-European languages. Mr. Nersessian is from the New York Academy of Sciences. There is your academic source also. Ararat arev 13:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your sig

I am unable to see a character in your signature. What font to use? (which language is it?)--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 14:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

it's cuneiform DAB — see here for the font I've just uploaded (.otf, Apple .dfont)

Thanks --æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

lunar year and lunar calendar merger

Hi. I put a mergefrom banner on the lunar calendar page for you. Could you explain your rationale for this proposed merger in the talk page of lunar year? Thanks Lunokhod 13:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Your 1-week block of Users Szhaider, Nadirali, and Unre4L

Dear Dab, For your information, since you figured in this posting, I thought I'd let you know that I posted the following on Rama's Arrow's talk page:

Dear Rama's Arrow, As someone who has done battle on occasion with all three users, I nonetheless feel that your recent week-long blocks of them, especially the latter two, are a little heavy-handed and over the top. I feel that they should have been given more warning, and perhaps slapped with 24-hour, or 48-hour or even 3-day blocks first. I went back and re-read WP:NPA, especially the following, which I'm sure you well know:

In light of the above caution, I actually went through Unre4L's "contributions" log between the time you gave him a warning on his talk page and the time you issued a 1-week block. Although, I am sure you have your reasons for blocking him/her, I personally couldn't find anything that disruptive, and feel that the 1-week block is extreme punishment for the crime at hand. I am not asking for your reasons, but simply that two neutral administrators (like say Dbachmann, Nichalp (if he is not too busy), Saravask, Ragib, or Aksi_great) review the blocks, especially those of users Nadirali and Unre4L. Thanks! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for replying on Rama's Arrow's talk page. I don't know what is going on, but something is rotten in Denmark. They have now banned one of the Pakistani users, Szhaider for another 2 weeks and cited as evidence of his incivility an exchange with me here. It's funny I didn't think he was particularly uncivil! In fact, the issue was resolved satisfactorily on the Taxila talk page. Please also, see my two posts on: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-Hindu_remarks. Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tudhaliya

Dear Dbachmann, I regularly translate articles from en: to nl:wp, among other things, and I stumbled upon the above mentioned article. I have a simple question on this: you mention M. Forlanini in Atta Pavia 1993 as a reference, however, I can't find anything on this illustrous Forlanini, only his namesake Enrico, a well known Italian aviation pioneer. Could you please provide a little bit more information on this reference, I'm happy to pick it up from you, once you point me in the right direction. thanks, Mhaesen 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

copied from User_talk:Mhaesenoh dear -- I am sure I copied this reference off some standard work on Hittite history, but I cannot remember which; you are right, there is absolutely nothing on google, and the reference is probably misspelled. I cannot remember where I got it. I'd have to go back and try to find my original reference. I cannot do this just now, sorry. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the copy, I like to keep the discussions in 1 place, otherwise I go crazy from searching. One last, small, question: will you try to figure this out in the foreseeable future, or shall I take it out of the article? Mhaesen 20:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged it as unreliable, I think that is good enough for the moment. I'll try to remember looking it up, but I won't promise. dab (𒁳) 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

User:Nareklm was putting "copyvio" when admin User:Jkelly approved it. He even said "add correct copyright template" This guy Narek is vandalizing. Ararat arev 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One question. I found a new academic source that you said I needed. I found Hovick Nersessian which in the New York Academy of Sciences. He mentions that Mitanni is an Armenian kingdom also, so can we add in Mitanni in the Template:History of Armenia article. ? Ararat arev 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:blocks

Hi Dab - I mainly agree with your reasoning, but the reason I picked a 1-week duration was to (1) impose the gravity of the situation to the editors in question and (2) give them a sufficient period of time to discuss, cool off and change their ways - as this behavior has played out over 1-2 months. It would have been unjustified to go beyond 1 week. However, I doubt any of these editors would not have felt "cornered" with any block - they've protested previous, shorter blocks in a similar fashion. Thanks for your advice - will keep that in mind for the future. Rama's arrow 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm is removing the Mitanni seal

Narek is removing the Mitanni seal with ignorance and vandalism. The seal is a Mitanni "related" image. Even if it isnt Armenian, its still a Mitanni "related" imags "seal." I let him know in the Talk:Mitanni page. Please revert his wrong edits. Ararat arev 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And about the Urartu images , you even approved one of them with the same info and tag. You put the PD-art link with it. Those are Urartu images. Ararat arev 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm didnt notice this "Shaushtatar, also spelled Šauštatar," , and he purposely removed it. Ararat arev 18:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann please ignore Ararat i have my reasons and i replied in the appropriate place at the Mitanni article he is telling admins what ever i do it is not necessary to put that all the way in the top. Nareklm 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain to Nareklm you put this

as of 11:23, 20 December 2006 (edit) (undo) User:Dbachmann (Talk | contribs)

Newer edit → Image:Armenian-Mitanni.jpg|thumb|right|Mitanni seal Image:Armenian-Mitanni.jpg|thumb|right|Royal seal of Sauššatar (late 15th century)Ararat arev 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mitanni seal which is in the Mitanni page has been approved by you and others, but Nareklm wants to remove it and giving foolish reasons for it. You even touched up the info of the seal. As I also stated images that are related to articles help Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not dull and boring. Please let this user know not to remove things that are related and help Misplaced Pages's causes. Ararat arev 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aa, discuss the matter on Talk:Mitanni, not on my talkpage, please. dab (𒁳) 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was discussing in there. Just letting you know in case you didnt see it there. Ararat arev 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for writing here, but these guys keep going on and on with this.

I wrote:

You dont read what I wrote earlier, I said I'll find you 30 or more pages on Misplaced Pages that have the same issue, random images that are related in their articles. Another thing you want me to do what you did by removing approved copyright of those 30 or so pages and remove the images? Is that what Misplaced Pages does ? No. Ararat arev 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay your point? im talking about this article other articles have nothing to do with this one. Nareklm 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell the guy about this please? He obviously thinks he can randomly choose a page and say its a different article. Ararat arev 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A debate

Hi Dab, there only one POV that risks making me lose my temper, and that is a crank theory called the Götaland theory. I am having a discussion with an adherent who is resorting to personal attacks at Talk:King of the Geats. If you are not too busy, could you please check whether I am not discussing too rashly and if needed mediate?--Berig 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Its becoming like the previous Talk:Armenia spam

This Talk:Mitanni is getting like the previous spam in Talk Armenia page. What do you say ? Remove it right? Ararat arev 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell the guys already you approved this, and there are 1000's of pages like this on Misplaced Pages with random images , yet related to their articles. Let's get this none sense over with. What a waste of time dwelling on this when you and other approved. These guys keep going on and on. Ararat arev 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok put it in his section, but its hidden in a dark corner. We want things to "show" that are related to their articles to show right? Not to be hidden so you barely can see it. Nobody is going to look at that link of that king. So can we atleast put in both places? Ararat arev 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also for the info where it says "Royal seal of Shashtatar, 15th century", on the Mitanni page, put something else like "A Mitanni seal, 15th century"? So it doesnt specificly point to that king but to the Mitanni page. Ararat arev 17:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be better to put this up there like the Urartu page has a map and an image next to it. Creating the similarity in pages? Ararat arev 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Compare the 2 pages Urartu and Mitanni Ararat arev 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you said wanst a big a deal, they are the ones that made it a big deal, it was already there in the first place. I also think it looks better up there comparing Urartu page. What you think? Ararat arev 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the issue:

"Im asking for his opinion. You (Nareklm) are the one who childishly started making this a big deal when it was already like this. You even had left it like that with your previous map a few weeks ago. " Ararat arev 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

for god's sake, Ararat arev, are you on a sugar high or something? Can you not succinctly and composedly state your point and consider the replies you get? Nobody will even read your bursts of one-line posts. You can't always have your way on Misplaced Pages. You have to settle for compromises. dab (𒁳) 09:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lang templates

Point taken. It seemed like a good idea at the time is a bad excuse, but it did seem like it was. I'll replace the ones I created, and perhaps even some I didn't, which are used in mainspace with the markup you mentioned. Thanks for the advice, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No arguments from me on this occasion! Clearly my idea was a Bad Thing. For the ones I created, there are two options: follow your advice and add {{tdeprecated}}, or I could add {{db-author}} if that would be a better idea. Let me know and I'll get busy. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

It appears that Jkelly approved the picture and akhtamar.org sent an email to permissions@wikiepedia.org... -- Davo88 06:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lutescan language

Please, do you comment anything about lutescan language there. Pasqual (ca) · CUT 10:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Ten Kings

Hi, I see that you've made a lot of good contributions to the article Battle of the Ten Kings. A particularly nationalistic troll seems to have put this article on his list of agenda-pushing opportunities, and I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it to see what validity his reversions have. I notice that you've reverted him once already. I have to admit not knowing much about said Battle, but I came across the article after noticing this particular user smashing through 3RR at high speed on other articles, putting very similar content on them (in particular Sati (practice) and Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu).

Thanks, Orpheus 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Akhilleus gutting the article Atlantis

The user Akhilleus has repeatedly deleted various important facts and relevant links from the article Atlantis (including a detailed map made to the specifications given by Plato, a link to the article 'location hypotheses of atlantis', and others), often under false pretenses. He may also be doing similar editting on other articles. I request that you investigate and give some response. HalfOfElement29 04:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot find anything wrong with his edits; you should try discussing your grievances with him on talk. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice to third parties: Dbachmann has repeated what Akhilleus stated in his edit summaries on the article Atlantis. -Despite the fact that deleting important information under false pretenses is a sign of bad faith, and therefore an indication that a user most likely intends to use feigned discussion rather than honest discussion. Feigned discussion (stating criticisms that do not apply, aka false pretenses) is a type of lie. Lies are a violation of Misplaced Pages:Civility. HalfOfElement29 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but accusing me of lying--on someone else's user page, no less--doesn't seem civil. As I've already said, if you think there's some material that needs to go into the Atlantis article, we should discuss that on the article's talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he was accusing me of lying as well, I'm not sure. I think the gist is he knows that you're a (Personal attack removed) anyway and therefore it's no use even trying to begin a discussion. dab (𒁳) 10:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think think that was directed at both of us. I'm baffled by the comment, but if he thinks it's useless to talk to me, I suppose I won't hear from him again... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How did Akhilleus know that I posted this to DBachmann's talk page? There is no talk page communication to Akhilleus from anyone that informs him of it. I therefore conclude that Akhilleus monitors this page, and is therefore personally familiar with Dbachmann.

I did not accuse DB of lying about Akhilleus, as per the AGF guideline; rather, I just described suspicious but inconclusive evidence.

Akhilleus, falsely accusing someone of making uncivil random accusations, just because they pointed out a policy violation of yours, is rather uncivil. If I am being uncivil, then every user that ever gives a policy violation notice to others is uncivil. The only case in which policy violation notices violate policy is when they are a lie. I never called anyone a 'lying bastard' (the personal attack that was removed), nor any other personal attack.

HalfOfElement29 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you may find Element 14.5's contrib history interesting, especially this edit and this edit (which were his 3rd and 4th edits on Misplaced Pages). --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, Akhilleus, for taking the bait. I could have created a new user account when I started really editting wikipedia on December 2nd 2006, but I decided to keep those old commentary edits so as to determine if a user was on a deliberate attack campaign against me, because such a user would go out of their way to seek out any sort of dirt to get on me, even if it's weak dirt like this (notes to self that were subsequently deleted). By doing so, you have inadvertently revealed that your previous false accusations of me were also part of a deliberate attack campaign in revenge for me exposing your deceptions (your most recent attack being in revenge for this: in which I merely mentioned that a particular type of deception is possible), and whatever benefit of the doubt you have benefitted from (by the AGF guideline or otherwise) you have now lost. HalfOfElement29 06:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, now I really don't understand your accusations. What "attack campaign" are you talking about? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, acting oblivious at this point really does not help you. Quite the opposite. HalfOfElement29 06:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand what you're implying. You seem to be saying I have a long-standing grudge against you, or I'm part of a conspiracy against you, or something like that--but to my knowledge I had never encountered you until your edits to the Atlantis article. So will you please explain what your dark hints of "a deliberate attack campaign" mean? --Akhilleus (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

...and yet Akhilleus persists, probably out of spite. "I had never encountered you until your edits to the Atlantis article" -As if I said that he did. I didn't. HalfOfElement29 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note WP:ANI#Block-evading_sockpuppet? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

-See? I told you that Akhilleus is on a revenge attack campaign against me. HalfOfElement29 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Monier-Williams

I was rather surprised to see that de:Monier Monier-Williams doesn't exist, and that there aren't even any redlinks pointing to it (or to potential redirects like de:Monier-Williams and de:Monier Williams). Is he just not well known among Sanskritists in German-speaking countries? —Angr 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised that the bibliography of our rather evolved en-wiki Sanskrit didn't list Monier-Williams or Wackernagel or Mayrhofer. I guess de-wiki just doesn't have that much content on Sanskrit, but at least Monier-William's dictionary is listed in the bibliography of de:Sanskrit. And no, Monier-Williams is also the dictionary of choice at least in Zürich (unless you are sitting in the Indologist library and can use the Petersburger Wörterbuch, of course). dab (𒁳) 12:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:History of Iran

hi. Ich finde deine Revertaktion nicht gut. Ich hatte die beiden Templates zusammengesetzt, weil es unzählige Edit-Wars hierüber in diversen Artikeln gab (siehe z.B. Ghaznavids oder Ghurids), die in ihrem Kern vollkommen unsinnig sind.

Tatsache ist, dass die Geschichte dieser Region bis zur Moderne die gleiche ist ... erst mit der Entstehung der modernen Nationalstaaten haben sich seperate nationale Geschichten entwickelt.

Es ist vollkommen unsinnig, einen eigenen Artikel über die "Islamisierung Afghanistans" zu erstellen, obwohl es den Staat Afghanistan vor dem 19. Jht. nicht gab. Genau so ist es unsinnig, für diverse Staaten in dieser Region seperate Artikel zu erstellen, die im Grunde alle dasselbe aussagen.

Man hat die frühe Geschichte Indiens und Pakistans erfolgreich zusammengetan - selbst die komplexe Geschichte der Islamisierung dieser Region (siehe: Islamic conquest of the Indian subcontinent). Nach diesem Vorbild sollte man auch die prä-moderne Geschichte jener Nationalstaaten, die dem "Greater Iran" Prof. R. Fryes entsprechen, zusammenfassen.

Bitte überdenke nochmal deine entscheidung und mach sie rückgängig. Wenn du eine bessere Idee hast, wie man die ewigen unsinnigen Edit-Wars verhindern kann, so bitte ich dich diese uns mitzuteilen.

Tājik 13:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

darum geht es ja nicht. Fakt ist,

• das template wurde viel zu gross und detailliert (Altsteinzeit...)
• "ICC" ist nicht ein gebräuchlicher Begriff

ich habe nichts gegen eine Ausdehnung des scopus des template auf "Greater Iran", aber das sollte möglich sein ohne das Ding zu absurden Proportionen aufzublasen. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kannst ja gerne alles nachbessern ... Aber einfach nur streichen oder zu einer alten, falschen Version zu reverten, bringt nichts. Ich habe jetzt andere Modifikationen vorgenommen. Kannst sie ja gerne nachbessern. Tājik 14:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

die alte Version war keineswegs "falsch", sondern über viele Monate stabil. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is the size of Tajik's version, I had asked an expert to reformat it so it would appear smaller without removing the content. --Mardavich 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that displaying the entire thing in tiny font size would qualify any less as "clutter". Keep templates to a crisp minimum! dab (𒁳) 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Urals blank map.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Urals blank map.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Michelangelo is being slandered

I have been looking at the Michelangelo article, and I find it odd that the talk page is inked with the LGBT groups. I said that to call Michelangelo homosexual is slander who has the right to use historical people for a hidden agendas. Now I have this --Amandajm person jumping all over my case for what? Her personal views. It is terrible how some of these articles are going, and now she is going on about 15th and 16th century sexuality, on the talk page, what does this have to do with proof??--Margrave1206 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Well, I know you since a long time, don't I? deeptrivia (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Micky-baby and the Poof

Hi Dab!

I wrote that long and perhaps ridiculous expose simply because Margravewhatever wanted poof (would you believe it?) that Michelangelo was gay! I really do get awfully sick of the accusations. If one indicates that the artist, well any historic person, was not rampantly straight and perfectly (wasserword?....Neurotypical) in every way, then one is biased and has a hidden agenda. Indicating that a person had Asperger's syndrome or a squint meets with the same sort of reaction! Yeah, OK! I overdid it! Do you want me to delete it?

--Amandajm 07:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

no, no, you make perfect sense; I had understood you wanted to add back the "LBGT" category to the article. dab (𒁳) 08:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Dap,

All I asked for is proof about Michelangelo being homosexual. Instead of an answer being posted to the article comment page, I get ousted by Amandajm on my personal talk page. In an attempt to force me to accept whatever is said. I never said every historical person was perfect or etc.. My point is that if you are going to label someone of the past homosexual then you should have proof nut just I say so. Am I asking to much for a non bias articles and real proof?? I have a great respect for the past, and I feel history is very important. I don't like to think that people would use historical people to further an agenda, I hope this is not the case. However I don't like when unfounded information is made fact with any article. You can read everything Amandajm has said to me, when people use such tactics against me it makes one assume bias views.--Margrave1206 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get it. Neither of you seems to be claiming Michelaneglo was a homosexual. So what exactly is the dispute about? dab (𒁳) 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

HimalayanAshoka/Userics380005

Hi Dab. I have indef-blocked User:Userics380005 as he was the blocked User:Himalayanashoka. I see that you are mediating the discussion on India. Please be on a lookout for more socks of HA. Regards, Aksi_great (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

that makes sense, thanks; sorry if I was feeding the trolls... dab (𒁳) 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

refactor? annoy??

Annoying people is writing about irrelevant things in sections that've been started by an editor to discuss his concerns. In other words, you talking about another editor's 'impeccable' behaviour on a totally different debate and totally sidestepping the issue at hand is annoying. Neither you nor Fnf own the India article.

If you dont have a view about the issues I've raised, just stay away. There is no need for you to bring in your views on some random issue in which I have no interest and muddy a section I started to address my concerns.

Indianstar saw the point(s) I was trying to make and addressed them as best as he could. So unless you have a view about something, please refrain from posting under that section. If you've noticed, the raging colony vs occupy debate on that page doesnt interest me and I've stayed away from it and I took the pains to create a new section for my concerns. Stop muddying it. Sarvagnya 17:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

look, if you want to insert section breaks, that's fine, but try not to name them "here follows nonsense blah blah". Try a noncommittal h3 "section break" or something. It is not my fault Talk:India gets a lot of attention from people behaving like belligerent four year olds, and it isn't yours either. It just means that we have make sure our behaviour is extra correct. Your section title and edit summary were not your finest moment, because you were annoyed with F&f. And F&f is annoyed with all the nonsense he had to put up. Just try to calm down and discuss whatever it is you want to discuss peacefully. dab (𒁳) 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the 'civil' response. you could have reworded my section heading yourself instead of dumping irrelevant info back into a section.

like you said its not my fault that you have to deal with four year old kids nor am I prepared to cut you or fnf or anybody any slack coz you're having a rough day/night/week/year; and you shouldnt be expecting that either. I have my own peeves and I dont take that frustration out on you and I'd expect the same in return.

If I'm complaining about Fnf's behaviour on issue 'X', you dont jump in and reply that his behaviour on issue 'Y' has been 'impeccable'. That is annoying. And irrelevant. Nonsense even. Hence, my wording of my section break.

Anyway, I'll reword it. btw, may I request you(coz u're the admin involved here) to educate fnf as to what constitutes 'vandalism' and what does not. Let him know that refactoring talk pages is hardly vandalism. Please tell him not to shoot his mouth off on edit summaries if he doesnt know what he is talking about. Tell him that accusing others of vandalism when it is NOT is as incivil as it gets. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking you to cut any one any slack. I am asking you as well as anybody else to make an extra effort in WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and especially succinct and unexcited WP:CITE instead of angry diatribes. You should look to your own improvement in these areas before deciding on "cutting slack" or giving a "long leash" to other editors. dab (𒁳) 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

your section break was perfectly justified as such, well done. Yes, my comment on F&f's impeccable backing up of his position with sources did not refer to the points you were making. We were not discussing the same topic. Now if you will, just insert some friendly section break to separate topics and we'll be spared further fruitless debate. dab (𒁳) 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rajput

You may want to weigh in on this WP:AN/I report.--Isotope23 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you. dab (𒁳) 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to assess the article but thought it isn't worthy to be with all the other B-class ones. It's "very bad" class at the moment. I removed a conclusion The Rajput community has to adapt itself fast to the changed realities of the contemporary Superpowering India of a Globalised liberalized 21st century if it has to survive or else it must be ready for extinction and being a piece of history museums....... that was a joke or something. I saw you have had experience with the article, so is it worth trying to fix it or will you just be reverted and be wasting your time increasing tension levels. Nobleeagle 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Foucan Casion Royale.jpg

Hi Dbachmann. The image you uploaded, Image:Foucan Casion Royale.jpg, is here under fair use provisions and is not being used in any articles. It will probably be deleted in seven days... -- -- zzuuzz 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Maleabroad

The user that's been disrupting Hindu-related articles, Maleabroad seems to have registered a different account: Brownguy20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I posted it to AN/I. Just a heads up. Thanks, Orpheus 23:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Akshara

Why did you remove the information about vowels and consonants in the article? I also think it has nothing to do with Brahmin. mlpkr 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read shiksha article before talking the above. I have reply at Akshara talk page for you. mlpkr 16:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

English Wiktionary uproar

I am baffled that such a distinguished Misplaced Pages contributor as yourself, can so blindly miss the mark on en.wiktionary.org.

Seeing now, this userpage, with confirmation that you are indeed the same user on en.wiktionary, I am at an even greater loss for words.

Misplaced Pages has very well established policies, set in stone. Other projects are not so fortunate, and instead rely on existing practices, discussion consensus, vote results and basically whatever works.

Seeing your conduct on en.wiktionary is absolutely alarming. Don't you think your position is somewhat audacious, in presenting a policy page as if it were real, that directly conflicts with several of the underlying principles of Wiktionary?

The implication of my very recent wikt:WT:BP post is now obviously misplaced. I'd like to understand a bit more about the fundamental misconceptions (yours, mine and others) before commenting again, there.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

mailto:someWiktAdmin@gmail.com (for faster response; I don't visit Misplaced Pages every day.)

Thank you for continuing this conversation. I have replied on my own Misplaced Pages talk page. When you have read that, I'd appreciate it if you moved that section of my talk page, (preferably in whole) to wikt:WT:BP. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Giving you the benefit of a doubt, just in case you are not aware, there is concern over activity by anon. contributors in your geographical region, relating to information in your area of contribution. Please note the conversation in the Beer Parlour here: wikt:WT:BP#Possible problem. I sincerely hope that this is not you. Also, your block has been removed by wikt:User:Rober Ullmann. There is a comment on Connel's wikt page that is "signed" (but not fully linked) by you, which would seem to indicate that you had logged in, but just in case you entered that by hand... --Jeffqyzt 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know Im blocked but I really want to discuss something

Let's be honest ok? Since you and many others like Thanaotsimii dont know Armenian ok? Since you dont know Armenian, dont conclude that Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit-Proto-IE) words are not in Armenian. I looked at these sites on Sanskrit glossary, and I was amazed how many Armenian words identical and very close to Indo-Aryan Sanskrit. Like I said, since you dont know Armenian, dont conclude and assume that Im wrong. Just look in my http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ararat_arev for more info on this. And Khoikhoi said I can use my Talk page. Im just trying discuss here about this issue, and why we call ourselves Aryaee. This is why, and its about the root word AR, which in IE(Aryan) equals light, sun, fire. That is where you get AR-men, AR-AR-AT or AR-ata, AR-ya, AR-mad (Armenian word for "root")like root words AR? you see?? Im not making these up man. Also you know how people say "its in my blood?" referring to their nationality? Well the Armenian word for blood or red is "AR-oon, or AR-yan itself is even the very word Aryan peoples. I mean I hope this is clear to you now. We are Aryan and root of Aryans. Indo-Aryan words, or Sanskrit is identical to Armenian words. And about the Phrygians and Medes-Persians languages, I found more similar Persian words with Greek, Phrygian. You know why? cause they were there at that time around 700-600BC invading the region of Anatolia, and used the same words to this day. Like the word ocean, mother, warm, etc etc. They(Persians to Phrygians) have even more similar words than Armenian 216.175.94.233 03:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And another thing I forgot, Im Persian-Armenian, that is my parents from Iranian Armenian born in Iran. I found that those words Indo-Iranian doenst have. I told you that proves that during the Indo-Aryan migration we (Armenians) were there, and we use the same words that are in Sanskrit to this day. Persians dont have those specific words Im talking about, so for you to say "Oh cause you took from Persians?" No, Im sorry thats not the case. Thats not the case, and the more complete and origin root words that Persians have similar to us, is from our words that 'they' took. You have it the other way around. 216.175.94.233 03:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.tacentral.com/erebuni/2ndwave.asp 12,000 year history of Armenia

Armenian is a separate branch of the Indo-European language family, though it has similarities to languages as far flung as Indian Sanskrit, Persian, Old Greek (Ponti) and Aramaic. The largest of the language families, the Indo-European "tree" is now believed to have sprung from the Armenian Highlands. Developing into sub-branches by around 7000 BC, Indo-European (also known as "Hindo-Aryan") peoples broke off into two main sub-groups: Greek-Armenian and Indo-Iranian. Around 4000 BC, these ethnic groups further subdivided into the Greek-Armenian, Indian Sanskrit, and the Iranian languages. 75.4.219.115 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC) User:Ararat_arev

http://www.tacentral.com/mythology.asp?story_no=3

The Armenian language is a part of the Indo-European (Indo-Aryan) language tree, and the Indo-Europeans are believed to have originated on or near the Armenian Plateau, migrating throughout Western and Central Asia and Europe. Indo-European took more than a root language with them, they brought ideas and beliefs distinct to their native home. Among these were the zodiac and the myths that sprung from their origins. One of the destinations for the Indo-European culture was Northern India, another the Doric culture in Greece. The Sanskrit language in particular has many root words identical to those found in Armenian. 216.175.94.233 04:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, User:Angine would like to add the Sanskrit part in Armenian_language section, and no thats not me. She lives 3000 miles away from me. You guys can check the IP etc etc. 216.175.94.233 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add Sanskrit in Armenian_language Angine 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not me 216.175.94.233 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert at Rajput

Saw your reversion of Rajput. Just wanted to inform you that the semi-protection tag has been removed from the article and your reversion has been re-reverted by User:Baikal. Is it fine with you?--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 20:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reverts to India article

Fowler seems to be reverting India articles edits to suit his convenience. For example he reverts some of my reverts saying that it was not discussed in Talk page and some of the edits done by me which he likes is not reverted even if it was not discussed in Talk page. He reverts blantant error corrections done by me.(Not addition of major contents.) He selectively chooses version to revert to suit his convenience.For example, I added some paragraph and deleted some paragraph,he reverts paragraph added by me saying it was not discussed in Talk page,but paragraph deleted by me is accepted by reverting to version as old as 1 month.

Logic given for reverts is also not convincing. He says he has reverted to original version of Nichalp which is close to featured article status. Whether Featured article status is ideal status?.If that is the case then why do we allow edits once article achieves featured article status. It totally defeats wiki concept. Many contributors (Non Himalayan ashoka IP's and others) have done error corrections/and grammar/spelling corrections in between. His indiscriminate reverts has made many useful contributors to obstain from editing India article.I don't want to indulge in edit war instead choose to obstain from contributing to India article.--Indianstar 06:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

well, of course FAs should be improved further, but there is the burden of convincing people that your changes are an improvement. F&f is required to fairly address serious proposals, and reverting grammar-correction only edits is of course silly. But if the grammar corrections were combined with debatable changes, you cannot of course defend your edit on the grounds of having corrected some typo of course. We'd need a few diffs to get specific here. dab (𒁳) 19:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I will dig out more info and post it here. You can observe in the last 1 month he has made countless reverts of various contributors. Some of the edits were obvious error corrections. Factor which is worrying me is reverting back to version which is as old as 1 month. If that is allowed then it will set wrong precedent and users will start reverting to versions which suits them. --Indianstar 15:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ŚBM vs ŚB

Because it's the ŚB in the Madhyamdina recension. The Kanva recension also exists, but a complete text wasn't assembled until some time in the mid20th C, and AFAIK no one has translated it. The basic difference is that the ŚBK has 17 books to the 14 of the ŚBM and 4 extra adhyayas, besides having the common material in a somewhat different order, which can affect citations (admittedly, not likely). I had a map between the two once, from a webpage, but lost it to a disk-crash several years ago :-(. It's true that a complete critical edition of the ŚBM plus translation(s) has made it the de facto ŚB, but I guess I was just trying to be pedantically accurate. rudra 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though I wasn't insisting:-). Two items:

1. I found the document with the map . Other parts of the document seemed to have been used too (eg for the Vedas page) - I was wondering about that earlier, AAMOF:-) I'm not sure of the original publication of which this doc seems to be an excerpt.
2. Check this out . Besides Surendra Pratap of the Nag Publishers' version of Griffith's translation, there's also Ravi Prakash Arya weighing in. Fortunately, anyone with access to a decent Sanskrit dictionary (e.g. ) can work this out for him/herself.:-)

Cheers, rudra 05:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Conundrum

Hi Dab,

I am almost at the end of my tether with bickering on the Talk:India page. A number of editors, some well-intentioned (like user:Indianstar and user:AJ-India) and others of uncertain intentions (like user:Sarvagnya) would like to add (or, have already added and which I then reverted) various portions of text to many sections of the India page, an FA. These proposed edits, all initially made by user:Indianstar are not minor (i.e. they are of the size of a small paragraph), and they have not been discussed before. I have tried to start discussion going on the Talk:India page, for example: see Example1, or Example2 (the title of this section has been changed retroactively by user:Sarvagnya from "History section" to "Fowler's High-handed Reverts"). The problem as I see it is that the edits are either controversial, or cover old ground, or too listy. I get the feeling that these editors are not really interested in discussing the issues because they keep accusing me of "making a mountain out of molehill" or semantic obfuscation. Their view is that their edits are common-sense and 1 or 2 KB or text is no problem, and that no time should be wasted on discussion, especially elaborate discussion like mine. Here is an example of some responses: Example3 and Example4. In the background, user:Sarvagnya seems to be egging on the other editors to go ahead and add the reverted material again before the discussion is complete. I am trying to hold on until Nichalp returns from his vacation on February 4, but in light of user:Sarvagnya's unmitigated hostility, I am concerned. She/He has used uncivil language consistently. Here are some examples of language directed at me:

1. "Will someone do me a favour by drilling it into his skull ..."
2. "hiding behind an admin to justify juvenile editing practices ..."
3. "Just improve it. Dammit."

In spite of my civil reminder to desist (see here), she/he has continued with his uncivil language and earlier today she/he changed the title of the discussion section retroactively from "History Section" to "Fowler's High-handed Reverts". (The discussion section incidentally had been started by me.) I am trying to keep my cool, but it is frustrating to hear such language consistently, when most of me, judging from the level sophistication of her/his writing, is itching to say something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot look into this right now; Sarvagna's attitude is indeed unconstructive, and he may need to be warned about it. You have to work with what you've got, and try to strike a compromise with the bona fide users like user:Indianstar who seems capable of following an argument and prepared to find happy synergy instead of fruitless confrontation. I hope I'll be able to chime in later, too. dab (𒁳) 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Another mischevous act of misrepresentation of my stand by Fowler. Anyway first things first. Talking of decorum or the lack of it on my part that Fowler seems to be harping on, may I remind him that he has called me a vandal for no reason other than his own ignorance of the rules.

His condescending edit summaries, couple of which I have pointed out on the India talk page, smack of unbridled contempt for the efforts of other editors; not to mention his ignorance of several WP policies.

And indulging in revert after revert after revert without any explanation whatsoever is like dealing a slap on the other editors face with scant respect for his/her efforts. Forget simple reverts, for someone who acts so very 'holier-than-thou', did he even bother to let people know before he rolled the page back two months?!

Its one thing to play to a gallery of admins and another to not lose sight of objectivity. He royally betrays his misplaced priorities at every step. He seems not to or not willing to understand that issues like style, formatting, grammar, article size etc., are NOT excuses to blank content or roll pages back two months!!

For example, there was this content about G4 and India's bid for a permanent seat that Indianstar had added. A bid for the permanent seat is an extremely significant and notable fact about India as is its space programme and its nuclear programme. So says commonsense. But not Fowler. He simply goes ahead and blanks it out offering no explanation other than another of his ill informed edit summaries(rv content that was added without discussion!!).

And when other editors decide that they will brook no more nonsense and demand an explanation of him, he comes back and sheepishly says that Indianstar's version was too wordy and that he'd have no objection if the same was mentioned more concisely as they've done on Japan!! So in effect, he has blanked out(vandalised??) content which even he agrees with, simply because the fact wasnt worded well??! What does he think he's doing! Has he even heard of cpedit?

And it is not like I am taking exception to his reverts because I have some sinister agenda. I've observed his editing behaviour since the last two months. And I see a disturbing and disruptive pattern and that is precisely why I've said what I've said. Its not like I am against every revert he does. Some, like the one he did today(the Afghan historian one) are certainly justified. But such ones are very few and far between considering that he has dozens of reverts to his name (counting just just this one article) in the short time that he's been on WP.

Sample the facts that he's blanked out:

• India's bid for a permanent seat
• India's nuclear capability
• India's successful space programme. and many many many more.

Explanations offered : NONE. None until fellow editors took him to task. Sarvagnya 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While I haven't been following the discussion. I must point out that ever since India became FA it has had a negative feeling of "it's perfect, don't try and improve it". My first encounter with editing the article was when I went to the talk page and saw on the to-do list that a paragraph of Foreign Relations was needed, so I did some research and created a paragraph (although a tad long), only to be reverted by Blacksun and to see the usual claims of "it's an FA, quality is important" etc. etc. while the to-do list was ignored until a managed to point it out and readd the paragraph. It's not a very good atmosphere to work in. Since then I've tried staying away from that article, only coming back so that India's dominant power categorisation was put in. Every other country article doesn't mind, but India seems to mind. Nobleeagle 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI. Also please look at the communication between me and Rama's Arrow on his page(Just FYI again) Sarvagnya 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

alright -- would all the parties here be prepared to enter Misplaced Pages:Mediation? I do think there is enough good faith here so that an amicable solution can be found. But everyone needs to be prepared to take a step back and accept that it won't happen by tomorrow (there is no deadline). I think it is undisputed

• that mention of "India's bid for a permanent seat, nuclear capability, successful space programme etc. etc." deserves mention in the article,
• that the article shouln't be turned into a glowing, rambling patriotic hymn about India's greatness

Our Indian patriots here can ask in fairness that India's recent acheivements be mentioned fairly and in encyclopedic tone. They cannot ask to be allowed to put their spin on things and pile on rambling prose. It will be best to be informed by the wording of other country articles. Please accept up front that the article will never be patriotic hagiography. Both India's strengths and weaknesses will be presented equally fairly and encyclopedically. If your addition is reverted, you are required to go to talk and inquire for the reasons. If it is a matter of spin or patriotic rambling, you could then ask the objecting party to present a phrasing acceptable to them. dab (𒁳) 08:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dab, do you really think a line on India's Nuclear status (mentioned in the UK page, Pakistan page, an FA), is "patriotic rambling"? Or adding a few more dresses, to make the article more accurate, (the current list is too unrepresentative to be considered accurate), are the same? Kindly go to the Uk page, or the USA page, and see how "fairly and in encyclopedic tone" they mention stuff. I recently reverted a paragraph on Uk page, that went like "UK was a super power"!!! A "highly" developed country. Point is, agreed it is not FA, but if it happens there, there is a chance it will happen here. There is a section on inovations on the USA page. Having said this, request you to provide fair and objective opinion, to end the current stalemate, realising, that f&f is just an editor, like the rest. The "stepping back" that you mention, is not the issue here. The two things I mentioned (Nuclear/Dress), I made clear on the India talk page, need not be mentioned, if you guys dont want to (See discussion on Nuclear status, it concluded with me saying lets leave it) for all I care, if the article is perfect, so let it be, am happy with it. It is f&f (am sorry, nothing personal, have agreed to many of his discussions/reverts), who really needs to step back on this one. The problem has begun because I believe he reverted to an older date unilatrally, which I think was a little unfair. Could have first discussed (as is the norm), especially when there were many edits in between the two versions. This is the root cause. Whatever else results (be it the supposed incivility) is the result of this. People do get annoyed.

last but not least, to my best knowledge, no one in this present discussion is asking to turn the article into a "rambling patriotic hymn about India's greatness". I think it is just the lack of time you spend on reading before replying that is resulting in this. The current discussion involves Indianstar, Sarvagnya, to a lesser extent, myself and f&f. Indian star made his opinion clear, by stating what he feels needs to be mentioned (refer India talk page). Sarvagnya too has clarified his position on this (not wanting to leave out any negative parts). So, where is the question? Yes, the discussion on the talk page did have differing views on India's history (bound to be, when people learn from different sources), but except one user (Hymalayaasoka I think) no one unilatrally threatened to revert to their version. A long but well intended post. Only to convey what I view the problem to be, with the intent to resolve it. AJ-India 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, I've started a RfC Talk:India#Request_for_Comment:_Adding_new_material_to_the_India_page_history_section. Any comments and feedback, at your convenience, will be welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Connel MacKenzie 1/31/2007

I've replied on my talk page again. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for transferring the part of article

Hi, I am chaitanya. It was me who wrote about that traditional articulatory phonetics article in Sanskrit page. Thanks for transferring to right place. You can contact me when ever u have any doubt in Sanskrit or in Indian mythology. Bye, take care brother.Bsskchaitanya 06:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Scythians

Hi dabachman, I hope you don't mind I corrected your contribution to the article, since Greater Iran was basically confined to the Iranian plateau and the Parthian empire, I suppose you meant to say the Scythians expanded into the steppe regions to the north of this. By the way, it seems User:Ali doostzadeh doesn't accept your third opinion. Rokus01 14:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Although, were you in charge of this third opinion? Hmm. I think I made a mistake thinking so. Sorry for this! Rokus01 14:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Greater Iran can be taken to include all of Afghanistan, half of Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and parts of Kazakhstan. Much of which overlaps with "Scythia". But the Russian steppe (Sarmatia) isn't part of "Greater Iran", I'd agree. dab (𒁳) 14:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

upload of cuneiform signs

ich fand Ihren Hinweis auf {{Cc-sampling}} in Kombination mit {{fairusein}} erst heute, vielen Dank dafür. Ich weiß nicht, ob das unsere Probleme und unser "Magengrimmen" wirklich löst, ich werde mit Dr. Ellermeier noch mal beraten. Mit freundlichem Gruss Mstudt 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Superstrate?

Hello. When you created the page Superstrate some time ago, you accidentally created a page that redirects to itself; however, I haven't been able to guess what you were intending as the correct target of the redirect. Please correct this if you get the chance. --Russ (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi Dbachmann, I've noticed you know about ancient weapons and you're fluent in German so can you please translate the Ger (Wurfspieß) to Ger (weapon) (my German is awful so I prefer not to do it). Nik Sage 13:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

that's not a good article; you should rewrite it from scratch. dab (𒁳) 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging articles by AWB

Greetings Dab

I noticed your post to Inge's talk page. In case you haven't noticed, WP:Norway is not the only project tagging articles by AWB, which is why User:Kingboyk created an AWB plugin for this particular purpose. Inge is indeed a human editor, but I agree that perhaps his category sorting could need a little improvement. I agree that Category:Norse mythology is going a bit too far. If you believe that use of the AWB plugin should be outlawed, may I suggest that you take the matter up with User:Kingboyk first? In particular given that this user's Kingbotk has tagged more than 100,000 biographical articles this way as part of the quality assessment programme? For the record, I've been doing the same thing for WP:HV and I'm currently working on WP:Denmark without ever receiving complaints in either regard. In both cases, nobody had any idea about neither the size nor the quality of the material involved before we did it systematically. Tagging by hand is possible, but it takes so much more time that I can only describe it as a complete waste of time. Believe me, I've been there, tried it and wasted considerable amounts of time. Spending hours one night and learning the next day that other editors were going through the same list piecemeal as well is not only a letdown, but also the waste of several editors' editing time. The amount of duplicate work was enormous when we only did things by hand. In the case of WP:HV, we were three to four editors working for weeks scraping material together for tagging and assessment purposes and everybody was bored stiff in the process. When I started applying systematics, I suddenly realised that most of the same work could have been done by one person in just a few days, so I was able to find the rest of the articles in just two evenings. That way, all other participating editors could focus on making the actual assessments. This division of tasks worked very well. Btw, simply blocking established users without warning is bad practice. A quick check of Inge's user page and contribution tree could easily have shown you that he is a human editor, and AWB automatically stops if a user receives an incoming message. Valentinian 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I approve every single edit whenever I tag articles using AWB. I have every reason to suspect that Inge follows the same practice. Valentinian 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please watch

...this page. Note how this edit makes mincemeat of the B.G. Tilak reference and its meaning, and how it has not been corrected in over a month! I am no longer active on WP and cannot do it. Regards, ImpuMozhi 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, please, and don't bite me -- after all, I came here partly because I'm petrified at the thought of tangling with the likes of your frequent correspondent. The other part of the reason is that over the past many months, I've just stopped caring one way or the other, I read WP quite often but never venture an edit. Life is nicer and more educative this way. I marvel at and fully appreciate your continuing high levels of motivation, and thought I would bring something probably of interest to you to your notice, that's all. Sorry if you feel I did wrong. ImpuMozhi 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for doing it. I went there to do it but found that you had already done that. Yeah, you could serve much better than a bot, going back several versions and retaining good edits etc. And you do all this free for WP! ImpuMozhi 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Horse archer empires

The Nomadic empires of Central Asia is a incorrect term since they are not only from Central Asia. Central Asia is a vast area in Asia which includes most ot the steppes of Asia but also Tibet which no Nomadic empire sprung from. Nomadic empires comes from the steppes. Beside the steppes of Central Asia there are the steppes of Western Asia and of Eastern Europe. The Huns migrated all over Asia but became an Empire only in the western parts of the Eurasian Steppe. The Sarmatians also haven't inhabited Central Asia. The Avars, Magyars and Bulgars all came from Central Asia but errected small nomadic kingdom in Eastern Europe. The term is incorrect as it omits the Geographical connection between the steppes of Asia to those of Europe. Nik Sage 14:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

well, that's splitting hairs, the empires still originated in Central Asia. Do you have any evidence of the term "horse archer empire" being in use? It appears silly to call the entire empires after a (granted, notable) archery technique. Besides, I don't think "Euroasian" is a term. Please use "Eurasian". Also, please go easy on creating new categories (and new articles containing nothing but a ToC) -- "Horse archer civilization" appears identical in scope with "Eurasian nomads", even according to your own definition. Try to discuss a single topic at a single location, otherwise things become scattered and fragment into lots of little stubs without context. dab (𒁳) 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiraja and {{WPDRAVCIV}}

Hi dab, I need some help and guidance from you about an issue. Since you're an admin and I've seen you show interest in similar topics, I come to you. It has to do with the {{WPDRAVCIV}} template that User:Wiki Raja has been trying to add on several talk pages like Carnatic music, Bharatanatya, Yakshagana etc., etc.,.

• His contention is that the template is justified because all these are 'Dravidian' traditions/arts.
• However, the fact of the matter is that all these traditions owe as much to Indo-Aryans(speakers of 'Indo-Aryan' languages) as they do to Dravidians(speakers of 'Dravidian' languages). Some(in some cases, almost all) of the most definitive textbooks and treatises of these arts(which are referred even today) are in Sanskrit(an IA tongue as you surely know). It is only an accident of history that these arts are prominent in South India and have few takers up north.
• First of all, he seems to be in knots with his understanding of the word 'Dravidian'. To me it is nothing more or nothing less than how Caldwell defined it. ie., it is an 'umbrella term' used to refer to a group of languages that are linguistically related to each other.
• Admittedly, this term has been in use(very few instances at that) since long before Caldwell in both Indo-Aryan(Sanskrit) and Dravidian(only Tamil) literature. However, in all these situations, the connotation of the word has been different each time and far removed from how Caldwell defined it(and what modern scholarship holds). For example, it seems that the Manu Smriti talks of the existence of a "Dravida" tribe. But it doesnt say anything to the effect that the tribe was Dravidian. Unless proven otherwise, imo, we would have to assume that the "Dravida" tribe of the Manu Smriti and the "Dravida" of Caldwell have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.
• Also to push his case, he keeps saying that "Dravidians" are a group of related 'ethnicities'. In actual fact, Dravidians(speakers of Dravidian languages) have as much in common with I-Aryans(speakers of IA languages) as they do with each other when it comes to customs, religion, mores, 'culture' etc.,. Just because some languages are linguistically related, it doesnt necessarily mean that its speakers are either 'culturally' or 'genetically' related.
• There are a couple of other issues too. Please take a look at the talk pages of Dravidian people, Template:Dravidian topics, Carnatic music, Dravida etc.,. The way I see it, he's simply stonewalling and trying to confuse people coz he cant convince anybody(atleast, not yet).

As for me, I probably wouldnt mind the template if the DRAVCIV wikiproject page didnt try to claim "Dravidian" proprietary rights for all these arts. Also, frankly, I am at a loss to understand what one can mean by "Dravidian" civilisation. Is there a similar precedent elsewhere on wikipedia. For e.g is there a "Japonic civilisations" or "Indo-Aryan(languages) civilisation" or would "Indian civilisation" or "Indian arts" or "Indian topics" etc be the more appropriate way to address these(IA and Drav topics)?

Please provide your views on any of the many talk pages that this issue has spilled over into. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I make a habit to fight as little as possible over talkpage templates. These aren't content, these do not show "ownership", and an article can well fall within the scope of several Wikiprojects. "WPDRAVCIV" is an unwieldy name, and the scope of the Wikiproject may need to be looked at. Wikiprojects are to be used to coordinate efforts of people interested in a certain topic, not to mark ownership of articles. Wikiproject tags should only be put on articles immediately relevant to the topic. Apart from such general statements, I would like to stay away from this, since I do not consider my time well invested arguing about the content of talkpages as opposed to actual content. dab (𒁳) 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that plastering a template wouldnt amount to owning the article. But my concern is just that it is misleading. Its akin to creating a wikiproject for Japonic languages and then plastering the template on, say Talk:Karate, the logic being that Karate is native to a part of the world that speaks a Japonic language. And btw, I forgot it is not only a talkpage template that's in question but he also has a {{Dravidian topics}} that he's using on article pages also. For example, Karate would be put in the {{Japonic topics}} box and the box dropped off on the Karate page. Thanks anyway. And if you ever find any time to kill, please drop by and let us know of your views. Even just one post would do, because you'd be as neutral(in Wikiraja's view) an editor(non-'Dravidian' and non-'Aryan') as we can possibly get to comment on this issue. Thanks for your time anyway. Sarvagnya 05:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

well, I suppose it is fair to speak of "Dravidian culture" as a subset of Indian culture, in a similar way as it is fair to speak of Germanic culture or Greek culture as a subset of European culture. However, people interested in the topic should make a good faith effort at building their case, in a "culture" section of Dravidians, and in a separate Dravidian culture article, instead of going around tagging articles. After that, articles that are directly related to Dravidian culture may well have a such a tag. It is a (political) point of view that the culture of India is monolithic and homogenous. It is another political point of view that there is no such thing as a single Indian culture. The reality, of course, is more complicated, as with European culture, there are many common themes and influences, but there are of course still independent traits that may deserve separate coverage. The important thing is to prevent Wikiprojects from degenerating into political pov pushing (as is already the case with Wikiprojects India vs. Pakistan) and go back to making them bona fide focus groups. dab (𒁳) 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between origins and influence. The items listed on the Dravidian topics template are originated from Dravidian civilizations. However, through history some of these arts were influenced by the Indo-Aryan civilizations.

Caldwell stated one aspect of Dravidian which were the languages, however, Madhav explains what Dravidian is in full here: "Dravidian has a venerable history as a label, and given that in modern times it has been employed in studies of Indian phenomena as diverse as language and temple architecture, literature and systems of land tenure, religion and race.”

1. Deshpande, Madhav M. (1979). Aryan and non-Aryan in India. Michigan: The University of Michigan center for South and Southeast Asian Studies. pp. 153 & 163. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

The Manu Smriti’s did not speak of a Dravidia tribe, but mentioned of the Panch Dravidas. Panch Dravidas meaning 5 Dravidians. It further mentions of the 5 Dravidians being the Tamils, Kannadigas, Telugus, Marathis, and Gujuratis. Sarvagnya tried to state that the Panch Dravidas were based on just languages. Ok, then if that was the case, why are Marathi and Gujurati considered Indo-Aryan languages while Tamil, Kannadiga, and Telugu are considered Dravidian languages? What the Manu Smriti was mentioning were the 5 Dravidian ethnic groups. I have told the user that in Central parts of India, there are Dravidian ethnic groups who speak Indo-Aryan languages.

Once again, there is a difference between origination and influence. For example, because the Malay language has Sanskrit and Tamil words in it, does it make the Malay people Dravidians or Indo-Aryans? Since the indigenous peoples of Latin America speak Spanish, does that actually make them European Spaniards?

There are a couple of other issues too which show strong nationalistic POVs. There are some users who even contradict themselves, and in some cases contradict themselves in one sentence. But, I do not want to take up much of your time. So, if you would like, here are the links:

• Template talk:Dravidian topics
• Talk:Dravidian people*
• Talk:Dravidian people/Archive 2
• Talk:Carnatic music
• Talk:Yakshagana

Lastly, it does surprise me that Bakasuprman backs Sarvagnya here then posts a demeaning message here against Tamils in general.

Wiki Raja 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Need Administrator

Hello dab, I need a administrator to look at Caste system among Indian Christians as there is a dispute on the accuracy of the article which User:Bakasuprman and friend User:Indiarising have involved themselves in. Look at to see reason and history of dispute. I'd appreciate your assistance and advice on this matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathanar (talk • contribs)

Thank you for coming and taking a look, I might of acted too soon, as right after I left this message is when I started having a cordial discussion with User:Indiarising, who seemed to have no problem having a conversation about the article. It looked like everything was o.k., but User:Bakasuprman has just reverted my edits, ignoring the discussion that had taken place and what we had discussed. I don't want to, but I'm going to undo the revert. Please take a look and advise on how we should proceed, especially if this continues. --Kathanar 14:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman is a known problem user, as he is proud to point out himself. Since I have a history of clashes with this user, I suggest you go to WP:RAA for assistance. In general, I would recommend to try and find a reasonable compromise with Indiarising as long as they are prepared to have a constructive debate, and ignore (that is, revert) disruptive edits that ignore the ongoing discussion. dab (𒁳) 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I'll see how disruptive its going to be with User:Bakasuprman. I have no issues with User:Indiarising, who seems to want to have a true discussion and actually contribute toward the article. I see no problem from him and am grateful that he has such a mindset as opposed to some of what I've seen. --Kathanar 15:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bild:Celts 800-400BC.PNG

Please, could you indicate your data sources for http://de.wikipedia.org/Bild:Celts_800-400BC.PNG ? thanks in advance --Eric.dane 17:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember. I googled for maps and put together the map based on several agreeing sources. Feel free to improve it. dab (𒁳) 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with references in Sathya Sai Baba

The number of 100 million was correctly referenced to the article by Nagel. However I can understand your mistake of changing the number into 10 million, because the referencing is confusing. The notes and and references should be separated which allows clearer referencing as per Sathya Sai Baba/Cleanup. There is a reason for the wildly diverging estimates which I will clarify at Sathya Sai Baba movement. In short, it is not clear who is an adherent and who is not, because faith in SSB tends to be not exclusive. Andries 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what a reasonable reference is. I personally think it is <2 million. A typical estimate, I have to research that. Andries 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I improved the references for the numbers. Please take a look now and let me know what you think. Andries 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki Raja's images

Hi, I need some help here. I am not very familiar with image copyvio rules. Can you please take a look at all the images uploaded by the above user... I dont yet fully understand copyright issues for images, so I am not sure. But I think that almost all the images he's uploaded are copyvios. Please let me know what tags I should use to tag them. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just fyi - I had pinged admin:Blnguyen also about this and he seems to be looking into it. But you also please take a look when u find time. Thanks. Sarvagnya 02:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya is really going out of his way to get me in trouble because I disagree with his POV and have got several sock puppets blocked, and have reported him for incivility here. If there is anything I should do in regards to image downloads, please let me know. I am clarifying this with you that I will be more than willing to remove images I have uploaded if I haven't done it correctly. Regards. Wiki Raja 05:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja, you need to keep your dispute with Sarvagnya separate from the copyright concerns with the images you upload. You first need to understand that WP is not interested in unfree images. "Fair use" is meant for a very few exceptions where there is no way of obtaining free images (e.g. articles about a commercial item). If you have an image you like, but it is not free, you should just not upload it, ok? If you want to do a map on the distribution of Dravidian languages, you are most welcome to it, but you'll need to invest some work. Learn how to operate the GIMP. Draw your own map (using the excellendt blank maps already on Misplaced Pages). State what sources you used to come up with your content. Don't just upload some map you scanned from some book, least of all without even identifying the book. Also do not upload random animated gifs you found on the web somewhere (Image:Bali Dance.gif). That's silly, this image isn't just unsourced, it is also completely unencyclopedic. If you invest your time and upload your own work (citing sources used), people will thank you. If you just keep uploading unsourced stuff you ripped, you just waste people's time, and people will be annoyed with you. If you upload clean and encyclopedic work, you will also present less leverage to Sargagnya to shoot you down, and people will also be more happy to defend your stuff. dab (𒁳) 08:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed that you and some other users are have a disagreement over Indo-Aryan Migration. Would you be so kind as to explain what's going on. Geo. Talk to me 03:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to chat with Win, to make sure he/she understands policy. Geo. Talk to me 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

good luck! focus on "Truth" vs. "academic notability". dab (𒁳) 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

your image uploads

Sorry, I didn't know. I will keep that in mind next time. Regards. Wiki Raja 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the , I created that myself. Please tell me what to do to reupoad that. Regards. Wiki Raja 14:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean? Image:Tamil map3(edit).JPG is still here, why do you want to "reupload" it? I see you have found Image:Dravidische Sprachen Verbreitung.png, which is a GFDL version of the maps you uploaded. I suppose this is sufficient (or you could base modifications on it). dab (𒁳) 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I need you as a witness

Can you act as a witness to this case with any evidence and statements of your own?Thanks alot.--Nadirali نادرالی

Thankyou for your message.What you say is true.The reason I wanted you to add a statement as a neutral user is because you have been a witness to their behaviour such as Hkelkar/Rumalstiltskin223(both turned out to be the same user)and Bakaman who apparently joined RA to engage in an edit war.The only reason we are "accussed' is because it was Rama's Arrow who started arbcom.I'll ask you for a few specific statements from your own NPOV when/if the time comes.Thanks for replying.--Nadirali نادرالی

Freya Aswynn - Proposed deletion

Dbachmann,

Since you are one of the only editors to edit Freya Aswynn I thought I would inform you that I put the proposed deletion tag on the entry. Besides notability issues, the main problem with the entry isn't simply the fact that all the information comes directly from her website, but that properly sourcing any information about her is almost impossible. What we would be left with a list of books under a pen name. That is my opinion. Anyway no one seems to want to improve the entry, including its creator. Thanks.PelleSmith 02:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

no objections from me, my contribution to the article was cleaning out the vanity cruft. dab (𒁳) 08:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Sarvagnya evadign block

So, is Sarbagnya going to get away with evading a block, even after using a couple of confirmed sockpuppet accounts in a vote fraud? Also, these two sockpuppet accounts were confirmed by an admin. Wiki Raja 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about? Sarvagnya wasn't blocked . How about giving me some context? Or ask for assistance directly at WP:AN/I (but make sure to include context information, and direct links to the issues invloved-- what vote fraud, what sockpuppets, unlike "sarvajna", I am not omniscient you know) dab (𒁳) 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope I did not sound a little rash. I am just a little shocked how Sarvagnya can get away with incivility, sockpuppeting, and POV pushing. Also, I did post something about that in detail here. I am also a little surprised that Sarvagnya was let off the hook here and here with just a slap on the wrist on conditions that he would not use both user names when editing the same page. Only to find out that he has used both usernames to engage in vote fraud going by Sarvagnya here and Gnanapiti here. Anyways, I would like to thank you for at least speaking up in regards to this matter. Regards. Wiki Raja 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a {{template}} for trolling and lying? I want to slap a few of those on Wikiraja's page. Sarvagnya 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the only one who has requested a check user on Sarvagnya here. Wiki Raja 05:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Even Bakasuprman states that Sarvagnya is using a sockpuppet here/here. Wiki Raja 05:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

irminenschaft

I keep CHANGING the entry because someone is trying to state it has a connection to Nazi Mysticism. It has only a connection in name through Wilgut's work. It should be under the heading Germanic Neopaganism. Irminen are not Neo-nazi's nor anything close. I would rather no information be out there than someone try to state that we have ties to Nazism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willmosley (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Regarding Talk:Urartu

Listen man, get your facts straight. The Armenians are native to the Armenian Highlands. I see where you are coming from, when you say Armenians have nothing to do with previous states and tribes. The problem is you dont see that the Phrygian-Armen type came later, yes thats true, they came later and intermingled with the native Armenians in the Armenian Highlands. I told you get your facts, there are tons of evidence from Assyrian, Persian, even Egyptian references of Armenians. They all wrote the word Armen in a different way slightly, but referring to the same native Armenians there. 206.148.188.24 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And another thing the Aryans are from the Armenian Highlands, and for all of these people that have taken the Aryan out of the IE for Armenians, make me wonder what are they up to with that false information. 206.148.188.24 19:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

funny, but I prefer to derive my learning experiences from literature (as opposed to anonymous messages on my talkpage). dab (𒁳) 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

proposed mergers of oral culture/oral history/oral literature

Dbachmann, you proposed merging, apparently, Oral history, Oral literature, and Oral culture, or some combination thereof. If you're going to propose a merger you really need to explain why it makes sense on the Talk pages. You also need to include mergeto and mergefrom pages on all related pages. ... Finally, just so you know, merger of any of the three topics is a very bad idea. These are distinct topics. Just because they both include the word "oral" and relate to the past in (different) ways ... oral history is the discipline of collecting people's individual personal histories and recollections of the past. It's an academic discipline. Oral tradition or oral culture is the social tradition of transmission of cultural knowledge within a particular group of people. It's a social practice, not an academic discipline. Oral literature can include recitations of oral culture, but is also about performance art, the art of storytelling, etc. It's an art form. I'm removing the merge tags now. --lquilter 13:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Responded on my User talk:Lquilter page. --lquilter 14:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Sanskrit Edit

Why did you edit the "Indian Subcontinent" to "India". Sanskrit was not limited to India, so please dont give the impression it was. In fact a lot of its development took place in Pakistan and Nepal. I simply changed it to the Indian subcontinent, since the term links to Indian Subcontinent anyway. Its a Neutral term. Please explain your edit.
Sorry if you feel my message is harsh. I am currently having a lot of problems with Indian nationalists. I thought you were Indian (nationalist) because of your recent editing without any explanations or heads up. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

we have talked about this, Unre4l, and if by now you haven't got it, I don't think I will invest more time in trying to make you get it. dab (𒁳) 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bengali edits

Hi Dbachmann,
I saw that you retransliterated the Bengali script article, citing that the earlier transliteration was not standard. Please read the discussion on the talk page for Jana Gana Mana. Not that I expected you to have read that page earlier, but it would have been more appropriate if you had asked about the Romanization system used here for Bengali by making a comment on the Talk Page for the Bengali script article before arbitrarily changing it to what you are considering a "standard" (I discuss the issue of whether or not the Calcutta Romanization should be considered "standard" on the Jana Gana Mana page as well). Let me know if you have any questions. --SameerKhan 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize - I just read your comment on the Bengali Script Talk Page. Still, please check out the Jana Gana Mana Talk Page. --SameerKhan 21:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'll try to work on the Romanization of Bengali article so it clarifies that the standard chosen for Misplaced Pages is not some arbitrary choice. --SameerKhan 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

excellent, Romanization of Bengali is just what I was looking for, thanks. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)