User talk:Dbachmann

---

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

DRV

I am sure you understand that my comment at the DRV on H.p. is primarily based on the feeling it would be more productive not to debate the matter further--not from any disagreement with your basic view--and i notice that Guy said the same--one of the few times he & I agree.DGG 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

sure, it would be best not to debate it any further, after the out-of-process deletion has been reverted. If that doesn't happen, you know how these things go, we'll never hear the end of it. dab (𒁳) 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edit warring has already started at Hindutva. Just look at the arguments given. How predictable. So much for cozy pipedreams of mergability. This may not be DGG's intent, but the message is that the Hindu section of WP has been abandoned as a hopeless case. Will that hurt WP? Who knows. After all, even the moon has kalańka. rudra 00:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

that seems to be the gist, yes: the Hindus are hopeless, let them build their dreamworld. Instead of commending the few Wikipedians that still hold out attempting to let sanity prevail, the verdict seems to be that they are somehow culturally insensitive for not letting the "ethnic" people revel in their own truth. This is racist: they are ethnic, they don't know any better, leave them in peace. I keep getting attacked as "racist" for my fundamentally anti-racist position that everybody has a brain and is expected to use it, regardless of where they are from. It is not alright to disrupt Wikipedia with bad faith tactics or utter stupidity just because you are "ethnic". If the Islamists or the Neocons or the Maoists did the same, the community would rise as one (well, as much as it ever does that) and stamp them out, but apparently it is much more acceptable indulge in dishonest revisionism if you are a Hindu, don't ask me why. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I sigh with you, Dab. In my belief you hit the nail on the head.

Lunarian 10:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflating Hindutva and Hinduism are we? Hindus are not an ethnic race. Your view that Witzel and Co. represent gospel of truth is instrinsically racist. Your reaction to cirticism is pretty much like Witzel and Thapar's; accuse every one of your opponents of being a part of some monolithic Hindutva conspiracy. To be frank i dont believe in the IAT or OIT horseshit. Yet there is a grain of truth/plausibility in wiritings of Witzel's opponents. Witzel doesnt help his position by dishing out vitriol towards Hindus much like you. Moreover you are inadvertently promoting Marxist polemic and half-truths. Take the moronical comparision of Hindutva with Nazism for example. Even Gandhi is held to be Nazi by some Zionists. You have entrenched yourself in such a position where with your self-righteouness you've pissed of too many people.

It is not my job/wish to change your convictions. All i say is come down from your high horse and be prepared for a genuine debate rather than trying to force your opinions down everybody's throats. And for once, cut out all the paranoid conspiracist crap. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Conflating Hindutva and Hinduism"? I am sorry if you didn't follow, but I was voicing an attitude I deplore, not my own. I am blaming people who wrongly think the Hindutva trolls are "the Hindus", and that "the Hindus" are "ethnic" precisely because that is a blatant falsehood. By opposing the fools on one side, I do not associate myself with the fools on the other. I have tried again and again to look for constructive debate to work out that "grain" you speak of, but it was all lost in the trolling. You didn't try to be constructive, you did what was more convenient, you joined the mob. I am not aware of genuine anti-Hindu trolling on Wikipedia, and if there was any, I would not be required to combat it, because the strong Hindu faction will clamp down on it within the minute. I am investing my energies where they are needed. My "opponents" are those who violate Wikipedia principles. Anybody who is willing to collaborate under these principles is not my opponent at all, but my fellow Wikipedian. If my presentation of the Hindutva fringe literature was one-sided, why did you not point out the other side? Meaning in expert sociologist literature of course, not in VoI publications, as will go without saying if you are serious about working together? From the material I have seen, it is clear that you have not done this because there is no evidence to support a counter position: the bad faith involved in the "scholarly" VoI publications is too obvious. A scholar like Parpola wouldn't use the term "trash" if there was any scholarly merit in there. A scholar like Diakonoff wouldn't talk of "complete incompatibility" if he could make out even a grain of merit. My entire point is that this whole "recent evidence" stunt by the VoI crowd is blatant bad faith revisionism, and is recognized as such in academia. Why do I care about this? Because Wikipedia's articles on ancient history keep getting trolled with this nonsense. I really have no opinion on "Hindutva" being good or evil beyond that, and have very little interest in them altogether. Any editor genuinely attempting to work out the "grain" you postulate would need to clearly distance themselves from the disruptive mob from the beginning. Nobleeagle has done that, and this has resulted in the fair Out of India article. Nobleeagle is not my "opponent": he has chosen to document the thing in good faith for whatever it is worth. It turns out it is worth practically nothing, and we'll let it stand at that, no enmity involved. If you could do the same, you would find you are on my side. dab (𒁳) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Its deplorable that an administrator makes such a sweeping statement as "the Hindus are hopeless" etc. I hope sanity prevails at last. Praveen 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf? what happened to reading a comment? I was myself deploring the additude. Will I spend the next year pointing this out now because some people have the attention span of an invertebrate? dab (𒁳) 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf! Its like saying "all the family members of dab are asses" and then deploring the same sentence after another sane user points out the generalization. Praveen 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh ? (Lunarian 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, Praveen definitely misinterpreted that statement. Let me know if he tries to 'prosecute' you based on that. The Behnam 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

feeling and strategy

You asked me to explain why my "feeling" that the page should be abandoned was a rational response.

1. With respect to the truth of the underlying subject matter, it's not a question of feeling: I agree that the Hinduvista scientific claims discussed in that article are wrong because I know that they contradict the well-established data of anthropology and linguistics, and I think I know enough of those subjects to tell--it doesn't take much to show they are wrong.
2. How to express opinions is also something to be learned. Rhetoric is a subject to be studied, both formally and informally through careful observation and experience. This is a less exact science than linguistics--we may know generally that over-argument is not productive, but we cannot completely rely on a knowledge of rhetoric to known when enough is enough.
3. Fortunately, in addition to our rational facilities, we also have the emotional facilities for living with other people--developed much further back in biological evolution. Though we could come to these decisions analytically, through the methods of social science, this is rarely practical. Informal experience and common sense tells me that it is usually better not to try to squash one's opponents completely, and that it is usually impossible to actually convince someone with a strong emotional commitment to a position and supported by others who share that commitment. It also tells me that those most deeply involved in an argument are often not able to determine when this applies, and there is often occasion for the friends of one of the parties to intervene and bring about a truce.
4. We integrate our decisions by our feelings. Feelings does not mean raw emotionality. It means social judgment.

DGG 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In relation to Wikipedia, you have made an argument to revise the article, not to delete it. What you, and everyone else in the DRV, have signally failed to address is the issue of process. Even if the article ought to be deleted in principle - which you haven't established anyway - why must the deletion in fact be done in such a blatantly out of process manner? "Social judgment" in this case has been nothing but whitewashing a transparent play for a vote bank. rudra 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please take a look at Battle of Thermopylae? Some users are inserting the upper-bound of ancient estimates in the infobox, which is an impossible mythical 5.2 million Persians! Yet, the same users are removing the lower-bound of modern estimates which is 60,000. This doesn't seem NPOV at all.--Mardavich 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs)

I am more used to newbies and people with a fraying temper to delete unflattering posts from their talkpages. It appears that admins above a certain popularity threshold are allowed to do the same. Hence it may be better to keep track of this discussion (monologue) on my own talkpage. [1]

[2] your method of (not) reacting to criticism, your political understanding of the community as a popularity contest, and your unshakable belief that you have got it right, never mind the rules as long as you have enough buddies, is unwikilike. Do you spend a lot of time on IRC? Daniel, I do not have the time to waste on wikilawyering on an arbitration case at the moment, so that it may well be that this will end here. The fact that you cite your RFA approval rating to back up your impression that you are a law unto yourself now makes it evident that you have an attitude problem. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you :) Nice to know that you liked the tripadi despite my amateurish translation. Sarvagnya

Gone?

Hey Dab! Are you going away? This is very bad, with so many seasoned editors leaving. It grieves my heart whenever I see some one leaving, even those who were banned. I have a lot of respect for you, and your contributions cannot be ignored by any one with slightest of sense. Are those accusations that Wikipedia will fail correct? I hope you don't take my "delete" in bad faith. My delete was only against the article, and I haven't even touched the Hindutva article. It is no doubt there is propaganda, and there are people who accept it. There is no fighting back if you leave. Sanity should prevail. I seriously hope to find you soon. Reply to my comment. Should I enable my email?--Scheibenzahl 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

not at all -- I'm taking it easy for a while, that's all. There is nothing wrong with your "delete" vote, my disappointment is with how the politicians handled the case, not with the voters themselves. Thanks for your comment in any case! dab (𒁳) 06:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Map update

Greets! Can you please update the map on the right to reflect Albania correctly. The country should be set to a color matching a ~10% Muslim minority. Thanks. - Dimror 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture

Thought you might be interested in contributing... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Polytonic

I like your changes. It appears that the fonts are only selected when using MISE6, owing to the "/**/ inherit;". This is not documented when looking at template:polytonic. I would be wise to add a note to the template so users do not get confused (as I became). If there are no complaings I would like to add the changes s:el:mediawiki:Common.css.

Also have a look at s:el:template:πολυτονικό to see how to use the template to make a <div>  Andreas  ^(T) 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

pseudoclasses

It doesn't work, but is probably due to the fact that it is only supposed to work on Internet Explorer 6 (at least in the way you implemented it now), I don't have the appropriate fonts installed and I'm having some font troubles since I upgraded to Debian 4.0 this weekend. —Ruud 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dating issues

Would you take a look at the dating claims being used on Bhagavad Gita? The article currently says "Theories based on archaeoastronomical calculations from passages of the Mahabharata place the incidents upon which the Gita between 5600 and 3100 BCE (varying dates are given according to different calculations). The traditional date reflecting the beliefs of many devotional Hindus places the text in the 4th millennium BC, (3138 BC)" An attempt I made to note these theories as controversial has been reverted. There is also a strong ISKCON perspective. Buddhipriya 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories CfD

I have put up the categories "Fechtbücher" and "Illustrated manuscripts" for renaming here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:Fechtb.C3.BCcher. Johnbod 03:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

'twas out of no contempt

"...prancing throughout a grand drama - Sir, a simple, single, silly affair of that kind - is quite lost in five acts - but that is neither here nor there."

I understand you're an exopedian, but what the hell, I greatly admire the constant quality of your contributions and felt like dropping you a prancing pony. I hope something drizzles on the troubled waters and you can return to editing in peace again. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

urartu

Since you gave many valuable cotribution on page Urartu I would appreciate your opinion on renewed dispute (I lost count how many times this issue is brought oever and ov4er again [3] There is quote from Columbia encyclopedia and some users try question it.--Dacy69 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism and Hinduism

Hi, this article was originally created by the banned Hindutvaadi troll User:Maleabroad, which explains the unverified claims scattered throughout the article. In one sense the topic is valid since the Avesta and the Vedas, the texts which Hinduism evolved from share many similarities. But I wonder whether the page will look much different from Proto-Indo-Iranian religion once it is cleaned up. What are your thoughts? Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, well, concerning common origins, the article should just refer to Proto-Indo-Iranian religion. What should be discussed under this title are much rather historical interactions between the two religions, in particular the Parsis settling in Gujarat. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

count on my vote if it goes for an AfD. As for the unverif tags still in there,... each statement in/of itself is factually ok, and reflect what the articles pointed to by the Main article: ... tags say. But the premise that Zoroastrianism and Hinduism are at all comparable is just plain bad.

With respect to "historical interactions": thats a tough nut to crack, nothing I've read discusses the issue in any systematic way. Beyond the legends of the Kisseh-i Sanjan and Kisseh-i Hindustan (which are both rather polemic), there is really not much to go on anyway: There are some allusions to the Parsis having had non-Zoroastrian (i.e. Hindu) indentured servants, there are a few records of land disputes, there is the matter of the Sixteen Shlokas, there is one documented case of an armed altercation with Hindus, but thats pretty much it. They had their own villages, their own panchayets, and their own Patels, and it appears likely that the Parsis (at least early on) didn't fit into the caste system to begin with. They probably stuck to themselves, which might also explain why so many of them were so miserably poor before the Europeans came. There must have been *some* interaction (otherwise the Parsis couldn't have developed their peculiar Gujarati dialect nor adopted so many little Gujarati customs), including a whole lot of inter-marriage with Hindu women, but when or how this interaction came about is not undocumented.

-- Fullstop 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Matriarchy

wikt:gynecocracy which you linked to from Matriarchy doesn't exist yet -- only http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Gynecocracy ... AnonMoos 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a redirect, but some of the idiot admins at wikt deleted it again, it appears, but failed to move the page. I find people at wiktionary sometimes have their heads stuck in a dark place. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

important

Hi - pls have a look at this ANI report. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I have already reset his block to 2 weeks and explained why he still needs to be blocked for a bit. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts! The revert rudra has shown you is about a deletion of parts of quoted text from a citation because it makes the quote longer. I am pretty sure that you will understand that size of an article becomes an issue only when the article exceeds a certain length which was clearly not a case. I am sorry to say but I do not assume any good faith against rudra because he takes it as a sign on weakness, and has been highly uncivil to me in past. As you can see from the same revert, I did not revert it again, because I have least interest in edit warring.

Thanks for your effort again.--Scheibenzahl 11:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You're protesting too much again, old chap. Just acknowledge the tap, and move on. rudra 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Etymology" section on Iran

You did a good job, but could you perhaps expand it a bit with some of the material from the old version, like the quote from Darius, or the map, and also the paragraph about Reza Shah's declaration to foreign governments to use the native term "Iran" instead of "Persia". I think an English translation of the Pahlavi words in parentheses is also needed. Cheers. --Mardavich 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts Dbachmann? --Mardavich 08:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My two cents...

1. What the Darius quote does is demonstrate is that the Achaemenids distinguished between "Persian" and "Iranian". Is that really appropriate in an etymology of 'Iran'? Wouldn't it also be odd to introduce a term only to later say that its no longer appropriate to use it?
2. With respect to the map: Eratosthenes uses both names, next to each other, i.e. demonstrating precisely what the Achaemenid quote does also. It then has the same weaknesses. Perhaps a picture of the investiture relief would be more appropriate? There are two of these on commons, either one could serve as a fill-in until someone can come up with a picture of the accompanying inscription.
3. Reza Shah's declaration has the same problems as the map and the quote. It would also implicitely re-introduce the Iran naming dispute without having previously said that there is any such thing.
4. IMO, parentheses around the transliteration would be ok if you think they improve readability. Technically and gramatically, the comma-separation is fine, but anything that improves readability is good too.

-- Fullstop 12:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita

Thanks for keeping Bhagavad Gita on your watch list. There are a number of POV issues on that page that have been noted before on the talk page. Until recently the only sourcing for the article was from material by Swami Prabhupada, and his commentary is rather idiosyncratic. The article on him reads like a fan site, and similar issues may arise with the Bhagavad Gita article as different perspectives begin to be raised. I feel that the resistance to addressing the dating issue connects to a larger issue about neutrality with the article. If you would assist with ensuring compliance with NPOV there it would be helpful. Buddhipriya 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Phoenician et cetera

Thanks for adding the template of Phoenician letters to the article. It'll be depressing to see you go. You've done so much work here, but I guess duty calls, huh? See you around, hopefully again in the future. Good luck. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:Image:Kaligoddess.jpg

You tagged the above with a notice that the image was copyrighted and "used with permission" -- I see no evidence that the copyright owner ever gave permission, just that someone "found it on the web" and colorized it. Colorizing it gives a copyright for the extent of the creativity involved in the coloring, but it does not overrule the copyright of whomever originally created it, which at this point is unknown. I don't know if there's a tag that fits for a situation like that, but I do not believe the current one is accurate. 00:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, and of course it might end being moot if the image ends up getting deleted anyway, per the notice on the current tag.... DreamGuy 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

um, no, there is no permission. I use {{copyrighted}} to mark images that are known to be copyrighted and belong deleted. I realize that the template text says something of "permission" -- what would be the correct template to use, then? dab (𒁳) 08:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

A request for arbitration has been filed involving you. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As it says on my userpage, I really do not have the time to indulge in elaborate wikilawyering at this point. Please stop sending me emails about it. I will look into it and comment as I get round to it, over the next few days. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration help needed.

Moo,

1. do you have (or could you please generate) an IAST-conform transliteration of RV 2.28.5?
2. (semi unrelated to 1.): do you have a PIE reconstruction of IIr. *marta? Is there a morpheme boundary between /a/ and /r/? Have you read anything about 'death' == 'make truth' in the RV? Its certainly there in Y. 16.7. Its not an isolate play on words either: its also attested other Ir texts, both old (OP,Av) and middle (MP, ManParth, Ossetic).

Thanks. -- Fullstop 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• [4]: ví mác chrathāya raśanâm ivâga / ṛdhyâma te varuṇa khâm ṛtásya / mâ tántuś chedi váyato dhíyam me / mâ mâtrā śāry apásaḥ purá ṛtóḥ
• there is no etymological connection between mrta (*smr-to-) and rta (*hr-to-). Punning is possible, I suppose, but I am not aware of Rigvedic examples. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice

I think you got one thing wrong about me. My interpretation of facts does not impel me to impose my views on others. To the contrary, the facts impel me to contradict statements and extrapolations not accounted for, cutting short any (sourced) alternative. Concerning sourced facts, this quote of Mallory should apply to all Wikipedia: "Appeals to authority, naturally, only help underwrite the seriousness with which the hypothesis should be considered, not its validity." Rokus01 05:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

you apparently fail to understand that Wikipedia, unlike Mallory (who is talking about research), does not aim beyond "appealing to authorithy". The Nordisk familjebok is an excellent source for Scandinavia related topics, and can stand on its own perfectly well. Of course, if there are more recent sources available, by all means they should taken into account too. dab (𒁳) 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

War on pseudoscience

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		for your relentless fight against bigots and enemies of knowledge Rajamankkan 11:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

hello

you commented a while ago on Talk:Islam about a few areas in which the article needed improvement, such as the size. there's been a lot of trimming and stuff done since then (size is ~80kb), and we recently nominated it for GA, so i thought it would be good to get some feedback from yourself. thanks. ITAQALLAH 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of CreationWiki

An editor has nominated CreationWiki, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Do Not Repost "CreationWiki"

As a Recent Changes Patroller (RCP), I am warning you not repost "CreationWiki" again if it is deleted for the third time. Failure to do so will result in a permenant block from making any further changes to Wikipedia. I understand that your changes in the past have been made in good faith and none, that I know of, have been created for malicious intent. That is the reason why I am just warning you for now. Please Note: There is absolutely no personal attack intended rather I am just doing my job as a Recent Changes Patroller. Redsox04 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

hello? wrong talkpage? dab (𒁳) 08:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology For The Warning

I want to apologize for the above warning. I was not very familiar with the process but I wanted to make sure you were aware that if an article is deleted, it shall not be reposted. I was a little unclear of my duties as a Recent Changes Patroller. I am unclear of who exactly it was that reposted the article but I did want to warn you in case it was you that reposted the article. Many schools and universities frown upon the use of Wikipedia because vandals take advantage of the fact that they don't need an account to edit articles. I am just trying to make sure that articles within Wikipedia contain factual and accurate information for scholars to use and educational institutions to trust without a doubt but I may have unintentionally abused my privledge of my title. For that, again, I apologize. Redsox04 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For information. --Bhadani (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Wiccans - thanks!

I've been migrating several sub-articles out of the over-long Wicca main article, very aware that the cut-and-paste job I was doing on the text was a bit crude and uncritical. Thanks for tidying this one up! Kim dent brown 16:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nous

I see you've edited Neoplatonism responsibly in the past, so I wanted to alert you to the intense changes that have been taking place at Nous, just in case you may have the time and expertise to contribute or respond appropriately (it's a bit of a mess). Wareh 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elp culture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 09:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cumae alphabet

I see that you edited Cumae alphabet. The characters however bellow the phrase "The letter inventory was" appear like this ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛. This may be due to my browser ie, version 10. Perhaps other browsers may have no problems.

I've drawn the alphabet here]. Could you check if the character set is correct? Then this image could be added to the article. Odysses (☜) 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also note the arbitrators' comments here regarding scheduling matters. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:129.69.36.89

It is a shared IP address. I have added the appropriate template. Please delete the User page where you have added some personal information. Thanks and reply on my talk page please.--Scheibenzahl 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

how is a whois lookup "personal"? That's public information, one click away from the anon userpage. dab (𒁳) 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was some information from CheckUser. Sorry there :D In any case, the information you posted is of least interest (and uncalled for). Security through obscurity may not be a good thing, but it is in use through out the world anyway :)--Scheibenzahl 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

user:Herr=dab=. Reverting me everywhere [5]. Username screws up links template. Hornplease 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Hi Dieter. Could you please move Wayland the smith to Wayland Smith? It appears to be by far the most common form of his name[6].--Berig 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Did you receive my email? Miskin 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Freedom skies is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• Freedom skies shall select one account and use only that account. Any other account used may be indefinitely banned. Pending selection of an account Freedom skies may not edit Wikipedia.
• Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period of time. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

I've started a WikiProject Etymology that you might be interested in. --Ptcamn 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you! dab (𒁳) 13:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious about this?

Dieter, are you serious about this? AFAIK, every society was a warrior society at this level, whether Celtic, Italic or Germanic. Moreover, the Hjortspring boat is a much earlier war sacrifice.--Berig 11:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

well, I may be mistaken. It's what I learned researching the Thorsberg article[7]. Warriors or no warriors, the Jastorf culture yields practically no weapons, and the 2nd century shows a steep rise in weapon deposits. Maybe we should avoid mention of "warrior society" altogether and just state the material facts (which I would have preferred, but Rokus keeps protesting against positions that the article doesn't even allude to). dab (𒁳) 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01 ideologization of this whole matter is very annoying. You are probably right that the article should focus on the material aspects. The ethnic aspects more properly belong in the ethnic articles.--Berig 11:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

well, I am not saying they had no warriors. I am just saying that the archaeological record doesn't help us with this before the 2nd century. Of course every society had warriors at that time. But there is a marked difference between this and the Migration period Germanic peoples who had basically made warfare their primary mode of subsistence. Rokus' ideological editorials need to be addressed (mostly, removed), but there is nothing wrong with stating the undisputed fact that the PRIA is the single obvious candidate for Proto-Germanic culture. I don't know when Germanic tribes reached the Rhine, or Rokus' hometown, nor does anyone else. If he likes, he can imagine that his local ancestors spoke Illyrian or Gaulish or Basque until 100 BC, or if he likes, he can imagine they spoke Proto-Germanic from 600 BC, that's equally possible. Just as long as he doesn't indulge in offtopic rants on racialist ideology (nordish.com). dab (𒁳) 11:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sparta

I have replied to you in Talk:Sparta. Miskin 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: cuneiform

If you'll re-read CSD I3, it clearly states that images must be shown to comply with our fair use standards. These particular images do not. They can easily be user reproduced. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just to set your mind at rest a little bit, images can be undeleted these days. But much as I hate to say it in the present case, I must agree with the concerns of demon and BigDT. Unless the cuneiform shapes in themselves were copyrighted (in which case we really could accept them only under fair use), this does count as "replaceable fair use". There also seems to be a general problem about "original research" in the overall scheme of that article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

could we discuss this calmly, without all the images pulled from under our feet while we're doing it? I argue that we can keep these images, either as fair use of a graphical design that falls under copyright, or as inelegible for copyright. Bear with me:

• these glyphs are drawings of Neo-Assyrian cuneiform signs. Obviously, the original design isn't copyrightable any more.
• However, inasmuch as they are abstractions, reconstructions or idealizations, the design might qualify as a new creation and fall under copyright.
• if the images are an unoriginal reproduction of an ancient design, we can use them freely, no matter under what licence they are released, parallel to, say, Image:Gothic a.png.
• if the design is an original work owned by Borger, Ellermeier and/or Studt, we cannot simply recreate it without violating copyright. We will in that case have to keep the images under "fair use" of a copyrighted design, similar to, say, Image:Maumanorig drawing.png
• ergo, we can keep the images either way, but we would strictly have to figure out for each case which case applies. This isn't straightforward, ok? For example, Image:B575ellst.png most probably isn't elegible for copyright at all, while something like Image:B164dellst.png may be a different case.
• until someone does that, I suggest we keep the images under "fair use", which is the weaker claim. We should properly say: "fair use, if not public domain".
• it would be ever so nice if this could be evaluated in peace by people who actually know what they are talking about without further disruption from the part of enthusiastic house-keeping admins.

dab (𒁳) 16:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There are just two problems I can see: (a) The assumption of "ineligibility for copyright" is probably excluded (except for the most basic ones, as you point out), because the author has already, very explicitly, claimed copyright. After all, that's the reason for all our current problems. She actually does want to exert control over the use of these images. (b) there is a third possibility which you haven't mentioned: there may be copyright on these particular graphical realisations of the signs (as opposed to the historical prototypes they are meant to represent), and at the same time they would be replaceable by an alternative graphical realisation of the same historical prototype, which could be produced freely and would fulfill the same purpose for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. after seeing your response on her talk page: is it true that typeface glyph shapes are ineligible for copyright in the US? That would make a difference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(b) isn't obvious at all: the images qua images are just basic b&w pngs showing the arrangement of the five basic elements of Neo-Assyrian cuneiform. If anything is copyrightable here, it's the arrangement, not the png implementation of the arrangement (otherwise you couldn't ever claim an image is ineligible, not even for Image:Gothic a.png). (a) is immaterial for images that are ineligible. Copyright claims only matter if the image is eligible. If, say, the design of Image:B164dellst.png is eligible for copyright, Mstudt has told us that she is willing to release it under a cc-nc licence. If it isn't eligible, we can just replace the claim with {{PD-ineligible}}. Since we aren't the supreme court or expert copyright lawyers, it may be more prudent to keep the cc-nc claim for whatever it is worth. (c) note that these aren't typeface glyphs. Obviously, a typeface could be made from the designs, but that wouldn't change their status after they were released copyrighted: after all, the design of the Apple symbol isn't any less copyrighted because it appears at U+F8FF in some fonts. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

File:Cuneiform demo.gif

Copyright protected?

Sorry for not coming back to you again earlier. Let's do a thought experiment. The following image shows three versions of what is presumably the same sign, U+1207A. Top left is the glyph as shown in the published Unicode table; top right is the one from Ellermeyer/Studt (Image:B350ellst.png); bottom left is a new version I created. If I were to create images like the latter for all the series, what would be their status? Would I have broken somebody's copyright, and if yes, whose? To the extent that all three images can be construed as identical, they'd probably all three be public domain, because the abstract pattern of the arrangement of wedge-like elements is ineligible. The authors cannot claim copyright for that, because the whole point in their creating the images in the first place was to document already existing ancient patterns, not to creatively invent patterns. However, the exact graphical implementation of what each wedge looks like is (possibly) copyright protected in each case, because it involves a minimal act of creativeness (took me five minutes in MS Paint). To that extent, I've established my own copyright for my own version. It's like creating a new font face for an existing alphabet. -- So, if Studt's images are non-free, would they be adequately replaceable with mine if I released those? If yes, we couldn't use hers. If we decide we regard all three versions as ineligible/PD, that's also fine with me. But who's going to write to Margaret and tell her: "Hi, thanks for sharing your concerns about your copyrights. We decided we can take your concerns into account by simply ignoring them; so please don't worry about giving your rights away, because you didn't have any in the first place; just continue uploading your images and we'll thank you very much." Would she be happy with that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

you see, my point is that we'll have to have this discussion for every individual glyph, all 907 of them. Your point may be valid for nr. 350, but not for some other glyphs (it is only in exceptional cases that the Ur III glyphs of the Unicode sheet have an arrangement identical to the Neo-Assyrian glyph). You have to ask yourself: what are your sources for this glyph. To begin with, you have only impressions in so many broken pieces of clay the archaeologists dug up. Each individual impression isn't copyrighted as such, but it is a significant creative performance to unify these into the concept of "glyphs". This is very different from the Latin or any other alphabet that never had to be deciphered/reconstructed. You cannot reconstruct the glyphs from the clay tablets directly: that would be highly non-trivial Original Reasearch. You'll have to consult out-of-copyright cuneiform sign lists, such as Thureau-Dangin (1898). For each glyph, you will have to establish if it was recognized as a grapheme already in some out-of-copyright work. My suggestion is simply: unless we are willing to painstakingly do this research for each of the 907 glyphs, we can just accept Mstudt's copyright claim until shown to be invalid. That is, we keep the images provisionally as "fair use" until someone gets around to checking their status in detail. If we delete Mstudt's images before we have established that, we are simply shooting ourselves in the foot. I might also add that your "recreation" is flawed, since the upper horizontal is shifted somewhat to the right, which may be distinctive (and, you failed to recognize that the second element of the upper horizontal is a Winkelhaken, not a mirrored horizontal wedge.): you have created a glyph that may well be a sign variant of the Borger glyph, but you will have to cite your sources to establish that it was actually in use. I cannot decide the legal status of your "recreation". Is it a "derivative work" of Mstudt's glyph, of Steve Tinney's "Classic Cuneiform" font (the source for the Ur III glyphs on the Unicode sheet), or can it in fact be traced to an out-of-copyright sign list? dab (𒁳) 08:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I must say I'm still not convinced, but I'll leave it at this. But on a different aspect of the topic, there was also the point I raised about the whole page having something OR-ish. "Users and font designers of Unicode conform cuneiform fonts have to cope with the following problems: [...]" and "[...] make it a tool for learning cuneiform as well as for working with the Unicode standard." That sounds pretty "original" to me. Of course, it's actually good original research, not original research in the sense of the usual Wikipedia euphemism (where it means "fringe crap and unprincipled amateurish speculation"), but still... Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, this could be rephrased. The statements themselves are pretty straightforward I would say. Look: we want to go easy on Mstudt, who is an academic dipping her toe into Wikipedia. We want more academics to contribute, and we don't want to scare them away with technicalities that were really designed to keep the cranks under control. The priorities are clearly to encourage Mstudt, so that she walks away with a feeling that academic contributions are welcome on Wikipedia. We can clean up minor concerns and copyright quibbles without frustrating her too much. What we definitely do not want is to reinforce the impression current in academic circles that Wikipedia is a playing ground for cranks and amateurs who get incredibly pedantic about red herrings on topics on which they have no deeper knowledge. This is clearly a case of WP:IAR even, asking ourselves, what will benefit the project. I am not asking anyone to violate copyright policy. I am asking everyone to sort things out silently and prudently, causing the least possible disruption to the editing experience of academic editors. dab (𒁳) 09:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem with me about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Sri Lanka

Dear Dieter,

I know it's not exactly your area, and I suppose you are busy with other things, but if you have a few minutes (or a few more), would you consider looking at that article and at my comment and possibly add your 2 cents as a reasonable person and WP admin? I would be very glad. Thank you, Krankman 21:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. When I see an editor like Special:Contributions/Bodhi dhana, I usually don't bother changing anything right off, as he will change it back or even make it worse than before the next time. Let's hope your status as an accepted editor and admin will make him (and others) act a little more cautiously. Krankman 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

golden man

Because I don't think the kinship between the Kazakhs and the Saka is all that certain :) --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

why should that matter? This isn't a matter of linguistic kinship, but of national archaeology. I mean, the national motto of the UK is Dieu et mon droit, and the Coat of arms of the Russian Federation sports St. George, a Cappadocian who grew up in the Iudaea Province. dab (𒁳) 10:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe St. George will give way to a Balhae dragon or a Pazyryk rider, because these do fall within the purview of national archaeology, while the Cappadocian dragon-slayer does not. More seriously, I am perplexed by Barefact's articles, such as Noin-Ula. They require serious pruning, to say the least. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

sigh, I thought he had given up? dab (𒁳) 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Kalasan

Spot on about the 8 sided aspect - there are suggestions in some very obscure refs that the 8 sides were very non buddhist - cannot find them yet - but it needed the holt ref - as she uses photos of the kala faces - I hope I read the edit history correctly ! SatuSuro 12:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

in my edit I was only adding a link to Kāla (time). dab (𒁳) 12:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for that anyways -been meaning to put a lot more work into either of them from sources i have -SatuSuro 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary entries

Wiktionary policy on entries for words in languages other than English is to give translations into English (where these exist) rather than definitions. Does the Ancient Greek θρίαμβος translate into English "thriambus", as the link to Wikipedia suggests, and is this translation applicable to both senses?

Thanks. — Paul G 10:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

well, it is debatable whether "English" Thriambus is a loan, or merely a transliteration. The word does not appear in the OED, and will only ever be used by speakers very erudite in classical studies. Very few people will be enlightened by being told that the English translation of θρίαμβος is thriambus. Fwiiw, "a thriambus" will refer to the hymn, while "Thriambus" used as a 'kenning' for Dionysus will be rather eccentric. I don't put it beyond Milton to make use of it in English, but if he had done so, the word would probably figure in the OED. No, I would tend towards treating this as a mere anglicized spelling of a Greek term, not as an acutal English word. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Marathas

Actually Marathas are a caste. I know better since i am one. Though the term has been used to describe all Marathi people historically, since 1947, 96 non-Brahmin Maratha clans are 'exclusively' consdered as Marathas in popular parlance. So technically every non-Brahmin in Maharashtra who doesnt come under the ambit of affirmative action is considered as Maratha. I have my father's Indian School leaving certificate stating that since he is a Maratha he doesnt qualify for benefits affirmative action. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. This makes me wonder why the 1911 Britannica is so emphatic that they are not a caste (at the time, caste was still a straightforward reality) but rather generally the "upper class from which Shivaji selected his generals". I don't pretend to know anything about it, it just seems that there might be conflicting notions here. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:POV

More nationalist POV is pushed in wikipedia by means of numerical superioty and rv-warring. Have a look at how the NPOV policy is being ridiculed in Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate, where a tiny fringe view (of the type "ancient Macedonian Slavic") takes precedence over western consensus. Miskin 20:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

can you be specific? I don't want to plod through the entire debate. I don't see any Slavs mentioned. Fwiiw, the Encyclopedia Iranica is undoubtedly a reliable resource on Iranian history. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no Slav connection, I was just drawing a parallel between fringe views, nevermind that comment. Iranica acknowledges that western consensus accepts the figures given by Arrian and Curtius (25,000 infantry - 300 cav. and 40,000 infantry - 700 cav.) [8]. Yet as you can see the Iranica author adds that "Greek estimates on infantry are generally 'valueless', therefore must be counted as zero", and makes the absurd estimate of only 700 horsemen. This had led a certain group of editors create a myth about a last stand of 700 Persian patriots [sic] against 17,000 Macedonians. I edited the article in order to reflect western consensus, i.e. that Macedonians weren't outnumbered and that the 700 estimate is a tiny minority view, if at all a view, but a certain group of editors insist on presenting the Iranica author's absurd claims as the consensus. Along with this I tried to remove a ridiculous deal of POV but I was of course reverted [9]. The last section in the talk page sums it up [10]. Countless of users have participated, including admins like User:Aldux, trying to explain why WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE is about, but the biased version keeps being restored by means of numerical superiority and edit-warring [11]. Miskin 22:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Miskin has been going around putting pro-Western bias in several Iran-Greek and Iran-Roman related articles. He contends that only Western sources he specifies are acceptable, and all other sources are not. He even went as far to criticize Encyclopaedia Iranica, one of the most authoritative sources in the world and a Western source, because he doesnt like what it says in some instances. For example, in the Thermopylae article, he insists on having the ridiculously high numbers Herodotus gives, even when "Western" consensus is against it, and yet in another article he pushes for the Western consensus number to only be present (Battle of the Persian Gate). Please review this users edits and comments on talk pages, his edits simply are not neutral. Azerbaijani 20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Azarbaijani your lies about my stance conerning Thermopylae will make it easy for me to demostrate that all your accusations against me are unsupported fallacies, aiming to trick other editors into supporting you. I was one of the first editors to propose that Greek and non-consensus western estimates should stay off the article, if for no good reason, because they were already repeated in detail in Greco-Persian Wars. You want proof? Read this [12]. I guess that settles it. Please stop lying about me in this and other pages. It's just not working. Miskin 22:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to trick anyone into supporting my position. Answer this Miskin, did your or did you not justify the Greek sources in the Thermopylae article and revert my edits, even though they were sourced? Answer that yes or no. You may have said something, but you did something completely different. If you truly believe that and believe in NPOV, then why have you not yourself done anything about the bias sources on the Battle of Thermopylae? In the mean time, you calling sources like Encyclopaedia Iranica biased. Miskin, you seem to contradict yourself a lot...

Also, please adhere to Wikipedia's policies of no personal attacks. You can comment on my edits or the debate, but dont comment on the user. Please dont call me a lier. I have never attacked you personally, and I'd appreciate the same respect back.Azerbaijani 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello there

Hi, we have not talked with you since a long time. In the past we have many disagreements and some agreements too. I just wish to drop a line to say hi to an old friend. I hope that life will be treating you well and everything will be great on your side. I think nowaday you have stopped contributing in Islamic article. I wish you to come back and contribute if possible. We might disagree but your contribution were very valuable. With best wishes -:) --- A. L. M. 15:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

nice to hear from you -- I will certainly pass by Islamic topics again. At present I feel there are many brilliant and responsible contributors active, and I am really pleased with the way the Islam article is shaping up recently (and I do think it justly deserves FA status now). dab (𒁳) 10:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nalanda College

Would you look at the history and see what trouble Lendorien is having with some people making this article into a red-link list of non-notable alumni. I ask you to semi-protect the article so that they/he can't continue changing it back that easily. Thanks, Krankman 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about you

In case you're interested, there's a discussion going on behind your back here. Just notifying you in case you didn't notice.--Ploutarchos 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To say "behind your back" is a bit nasty, especially when the discussion is taking place on a public noticeboard. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The way I see it, when one complains about someone, that someone should be informed about it so as to give them a chance to defend themselves. Unless that someone is mentioned in the section heading, how do you expect him to notice it?--Ploutarchos 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't your decision to inform Dieter that I objected to, but your use of the prejudicial term "behind your back", when the discussion was held in public on the wiki, on a page designated for the purpose. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I don't feel I was attacked, although I do feel there was an attempt to 'hush up' my argument. As so often, this is a lot of racket over practically nothing. Let the man sit out his day's block. If he indulges in incivility, post a warning. But whoever takes it upon themselves to deal with this should make sure to look into both sides of this case. Miskin is editing topics that see a lot of nationalist trolling. It will not do to clamp down on our good editors the minute they lose patience with the trolls and sockmasters. If Miskin is incivil with bona fide editors without being provoked, this is serious and he needs to be warned. If he just fed some troll after eing provoked, that's a completely different matter: try to keep perspective and let common sense prevail. dab (𒁳) 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR penalties

You are entirely incorrect that I cannot block indefinitely for 3RR violations. Per WP:3RR "If an editor violates the three-revert rule, they may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated violation." That is the exact definition of "indefinite"...for an indeterminable length of time. Nowhere on the page for 3RR does it say "sysops may not block indefinitely for 3RR". In fact, it encourages it for repeat offenders. Per the page, also "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours.". Finally, "Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations." I'd appreciate not being lectured on blocking policy when I'm following it correctly (I know it wasn't you that told me to review the policy, but you did claim I was not "allowed" to do that, and obviously policy states I'm perfectly allowed to do so.) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Per WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN, there is a difference between a BAN and an indefinite block. Indefinite means non-defined. A ban is an INFINITE block. This is WELL established over and over again by policy, which as an admin you should be aware of. I'm also troubled by your unblocking. Per WP:BLOCK and WP:WHEEL, "Administrators should not unblock and from WP:WW "Possible indications of wheel warring are:.....An admin takes it upon himself to undo another admin's actions without consultation." You did neither. So before questioning my attitude, lets question your actions first? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear this discussion is over. Your obvious inability to listen to criticism and question your own position frankly makes me wonder how you became an admin in the first place, and I see that I am not the first to have doubts about your attitude. dab (𒁳) 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Where's the link to my nearly unanimous second RFA? I see you find it easy to accuse me of inability to listen to criticism. I still have heard no response about your lack of consultation before unblocking, which is against blocking policy and indicates a wheel war (per WP:WHEEL AND WP:BP). And you accuse ME of inability to listen to criticism? I indicated willingness to unblock, while compromising with Newyorkbrad. I don't see any such good faith from you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to reply to your silly allegation of wheel warring (reviewing blocks upon {{unblock}} is not wheel warring, give me a break): your strategy is quite obviously to reply to criticism with other criticism, no matter how far fetched, just as long as this allows you to dodge the issue. dab (𒁳) 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for a citation

Dab, the statement you added to Carvaka may be true, but it is unsourced. Can you please provide a citation as a reference rather than using the reference section to provide an opinion on derivation? Here is the statement:

It is named after its founder, Cārvāka, author of the Bārhaspatya-sūtras.

Buddhipriya 21:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

what is controversial about it? this is straight from Monier-Williams, but I suppose you can consult any Sanskrit dictionary. dab (𒁳) 07:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is just to try to get more citations into these poorly-sourced articles, as required for verifiability. The same issue applies to edits to Mimamsa. I am not saying that what you are adding is wrong, I am just encouraging you to cite sources as you go so that the articles will be sourced. Buddhipriya 08:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

sure. give me a minute. The Mimamsa article was in very poor shape. I did some straightforward cleanup first will add references as I find them. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been opened for a case in which you have been named as a party. See WP:RFAR to offer your statement. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

glad to hear it. dab (𒁳) 09:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a time-saving note in case you're searching for diffs, see my post in the bottom of this heading (the 10-point numbered list). I've been following this closely from start, and I'll be glad to help gathering information (for any "side", that is). NikoSilver 10:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if I should comment myself directly in the case over this small addition to your statement (and I honestly don't know how), so I'm saying it to you, since you are apparently an involved party. A procedural issue that I don't see highlighted enough IMO: The original block was for 3RR (debatable but understandable). The following block was for an alleged "general disruption" (also cited by other admins both in the AN/I thread and in the ArbCom case). In all these long threads, I have yet to see one diff of that alleged "general disruption", let alone an indication that in the given time such a conclusion has been drawn prior to the extension of the block (as you already point out). So, the point is, can a borderline case of 3RR trigger a lengthy block over an irrelevant alleged behavioral issue, for which no evidence has been produced (and no evidence could have been evaluated in the given time)? Who built the case on disruptiveness and on what evidence? NikoSilver 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

precisely my point. Where are the diffs? Where are the warnings? Is this a case of simple 3rr, or a case of protracted disruption? However, I am done wikilawyering about this, let others unravel the case. I am disappointed to see a lot of undignified hooting ("did I hear something quack", "drag his sorry arse to arbcom") from people who clearly didn't invest their precious time in actual investigation. This isn't a "cabal" so much as depressing mob justice, we seem to running short of old-fashioned thoughtfulness and deliberation in admins, thinking first and adding their funny comment later. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I also note that some admins continue to comment appealing to this alleged general disruption, even without such evidence having been produced, and most importantly even if they have never interacted with Miskin in any article or talk. This brings the reverse dimension on the "admins in backpocket" allegations. It is serious evidence of off-wiki lobbying for support in administrative actions, and quite lame too. NikoSilver 13:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

very lame. the dangers of IRC. These rambunctious admins could have invested their time to collect all relevant diffs on Miskin and his Iranian nemesis, and conclusively present who did and who did not act disruptively. Maybe he did, I didn't check, in which case the diffs should be presented, and the user should be duly warned (as opposed to flayed and hung from the city walls). Off-wiki lobbying and ganging up is not part of the admin job description. Digging into boring edit histories is. dab (𒁳) 13:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

...And the worst part is that they will probably get away with it, since the evidence is just based on rational hunches, and since nobody is a Saint so I'm sure they'll eventually dig something out of his contribs. The fact, however, remains, that such a digging has not taken place yet despite that the incident was filed yesterday. So whatever is produced will be the result of post-block red-herring scrutiny, as opposed to pre-block responsible admin work. NikoSilver 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a piece of evidence that I am curious why it hasn't been made public though as of yet: The "aggreviated e-mail" which may contain such evidence. Why wouldn't that be posted yet in AN/I (or at least part of the alleged evidence included there) is beyond me. There are three cases I can think of: If that was serious, then (a) it would have been posted in defense of the month block (b) if it is being "reserved" this is definitely an inflammatory tactic (given the huge amount of debate in ANI) or (c) it is not serious at all. My guess is (c). NikoSilver 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You need a sender's permission to divulge the contents of his private communication. That's the most wonderful thing about it. Send any slander by e-mail - and nobody will know the motives for the resulting block. I recall that in one case ArbCom privately scrutinised the content of an e-mail but it was forwarded to them with the sender's permission. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Second hmmmmm... Then whyhas the recipient affirmed the committee that he will identify the sender (in bold too)? NikoSilver 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

...Hmmmm... however, even if it was indeed serious, then where do the rest of the admins base their "disruptive behavior" rationale? Is there a selective list of recipients? Are there friendship-supports involved? NikoSilver 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

if the e-mail is at all relevant it was about Miskin's on-wiki behaviour, which is in the open and can be looked into by anyone. You don't have to see any obscure email to establish whether Miskin was or was not being disruptive, all you have to do is review his contributions. So Swatjester was sent an "aggreviated e-mail" alleging "Miskin has admins in his back pocket"? Why the hell should he choose to believe something like this, and press action against Miskin to the point of making an utter fool of himself? Who is in whose pocket here? A detached admin would look into the dispute, take note of misbehaviour on both sides (Miskin's side wasn't the one using sock accounts, remember?), try to de-fuse the situation with compromise suggestions, and if necessary issue warnings or short blocks to allow resumption of calm editing. 3RRvios should lead to algorithmic and uncontroversial blocks unrelated to such "community work". 3RR is a tool for de-escalation and should be hanlded as detachedly as possible. 3RR blocks aren't a tool for chastising notorious troublemakers: these go underground and unleash their sock armies long before 3RR takes effect. dab (𒁳) 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the point. Miskin isn't a saint, I never said his behaviour was impeccable. He did probably deserve the 24h block he got. That's beside the point. He is a valuable contributor with some rough edges. He may need no-nonsense warnings sometimes to keep him in line. I know this, I've been involved in his 2005 exploits. Whatever minor disruption this may caused is easily balanced by his prolific contributions. Sure, warn him, slap him with short blocks if necessary, but treat him fairly and even-handedly. It is people like him who write the encyclopedia, not the bigmouths hanging out on AN/I and IRC. dab (𒁳) 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bigmouths hanging out on AN/I and IRC" - that's pure gold. It's these bigmouths who are the strongest proponents of WP:DR and will block people "so they can read it". Problem is, they've never tried it themselves in a nationalistic dispute, they've spent all their editing career on IRC and ANI (and maybe reverting vandalism). In my experience, it doesn't work with some people; WP:DR is for reasonable people, not for nationalists in the swamps whose only purpose is to promote their views. What can one do with them other than rv war? This is the billion dollar question.--Ploutarchos 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

on this, see User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism. We have semiprotection and usercheck. Plus, there is no deadline. They all give up in the end. They have the socks, but we have policy, and the buttons to enforce it. To be clear: This is not applicable to the present case. Miskin wasn't fighting nationalist trolls, he was engaging in fair and reasonable debate with Arash and Arvand, the only troll involved was this "Dharmender6767" character. Admin intervention in this case actually disrupted a perfectly functioning editing process. I can only surmise that the actual trolls and saw their chance for filibustering with Swatjester, who fell for it with bells, whistles and assorted comical animal noises. dab (𒁳) 14:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it constitute bragging if I said "great minds think alike"? :-) NikoSilver 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a number of commentators argue that you didn't notify the blocking admin prior to reducing Miskin's block. Below is the sequence of events with times and links, and I would advise you include this evidence in your statement (and tweaking the wording to reflect that you notified the blocking administrator prior to the reduction of the block - because now it reads as though you did immediately after):

1. - 05:5x, May 13, 2007 Initial block by Swatester:[13]
   • 05:55, May 13, 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) blocked "Miskin (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on: Battle of the Persian Gate)
   • 05:56, May 13, 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) unblocked Miskin (contribs) (unblocking to extend)
   • 05:57, May 13, 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) blocked "Miskin (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (3RR violation on: 3RR violation, huge past blocking list, clearly no intent of editing constructively. Last step before indefinite.)
2. - 10:41, May 13, 2007 Miskin requesting unblock.[14]
3. - 14:22, May 13, 2007 Dbachmann notifying blocking admin[15]
4. - 14:24, May 13, 2007 Dbachmann reducing block:[16]
   • 14:24, May 13, 2007 Dbachmann (Talk | contribs) unblocked Miskin (contribs) (unblock to change duration)
   • 14:24, May 13, 2007 Dbachmann (Talk | contribs) blocked "Miskin (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 15 hours (per User talk:Swatjester)
5. - 14:25, May 13, 2007 Notifying Miskin of the reduction.[17]
6. - 14:37, May 13, 2007 Dbachmann adding to his comment to blocking admin.[18]
7. - 16:42, May 13, 2007 Swatjester (in his own talkpage) replies to Dbachmann.[19]
8. - 16:48, May 13, 2007 Swatjester filing in ANI.[20]
9. - 17:23, May 13, 2007 Dbachmann's first post in response to AN/I.[21]

If you see fit I can expand this list with more incidents, such as the prior forum shopping, such as the 3rr rejection, such as Alison's compromise (which IMO was in good faith -although a bit harsher than I'd prefer for such long time of proper behavior- I'd give 3 days as a compromise, but that may have seemed too far from the [IMO completely unjustified] month). NikoSilver 13:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether I notified him immediately before or after I shortened his block: I didn't wait for his reaction, I went ahead and did it. I reviewed his admin action, and I frankly found it was indefensible and frankly close to admin abuse (especially in combination with his threats). I set it right as a fellow admin reviewing the action, asking him to seek wider community input if he couldn't live with my decision. This isn't wheel-warring (I would have been wheel-warring if I had reverted Alison's block, to which I objected verbally, although I fully realize Alison was just trying to help).

Swatjester's dubious action need not have had any consequences for him, neither penalty nor ridicule, if he could just have silently accepted that he had made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, I certainly won't cry "admin abuse" if someone fails to read a block log properly. This could have been over then and there as a minor incident. It was only after this that Swatjester discredited himself, but then utterly. It has by now become abundantly clear that this user is incapable of constructive interaction. His show of ego, nasty politicking and choleric fits belongs in a peer group of pubescent girls and has nothing to do with the way we want to deal with conflicts on Wikipedia. I am not following this now. Let the arbcom have their say (probably 'reject'). If Swatjester finds a choir of a "number of commentators" that are happy to draw this out ad nauseam, so much the worse for the present sanity of our admin population. dab (𒁳) 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian philosophy

You appear to be making changes to dates on Indian philosophy that are connected to sourced inline references. Can you please be careful not to omit or change information that is supported by inline sources? I know that you have great expertise in this area and may be able to provide alternative sources with different information. If so, please add them to the article rather than rewriting sourced material. Buddhipriya 19:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

can you give me a diff? I may have removed material on grounds of being offtopic to the article subject, not of being unsourced. Sources are only the first half of the story, Buddhipriya, the other half is the compilation of coherent, flowing prose elucidating the article subject without descending into rambling essays. dab (𒁳) 19:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff with apparent date changes. The dates in the orginal version were sourced, but of course some variation in dating between sources would be expected. Can you clarify your changes? [22] Buddhipriya 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. It appears the only date I changed is the beginning of the Epic Sanskrit period, from 600 to 400 BC. This is informed by the Mahabharata article, but I suppose 600 BC isn't completely false either. Anyway, I don't see what a list of the main periods of Sanskrit literature is doing in this article, it belongs (and is) on Sanskrit literature. The Vedas and epics have their own articles and are not considered "philosophical" literature. dab (𒁳) 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The division into time periods is sourced by a standard textbook on Indian philosophy, which is the point of the inline citations. I think the material should be restored to the prior state before it was edited, as it represents the opinion of Radhakrishnan and Moore on the subject, writing specifically on dating periods for Indian philosophy. Wikipedia articles are not relevant as WP:RS of course. Your edits also had the effect of removing the section on periods entirely, which I think should be restored. Can you use the talk page for the article prior to making major structural changes on articles? Buddhipriya 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

no big deal. My point is: this table is offtopic. It discusses Sanskrit literature in general, not Indian philosophy in particular. Can we remove it please? It's offtopic. The source cited dates to 1929. Of course the Mahabharata article itself isn't a RS, Buddhipriya, I referred you to it because it cites its own RSs. dab (𒁳) 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is off topic. The immediate problem is that your extensive changes to the article are hard to absorb. I am going through your edits now trying to identify what you did, and am restoring items that I do not think were improvements. Can we please move more slowly in the future, and can we take this discussion to the talk page for the article? You have so much to add it will be wonderful to work with you on this, but I am not comfortable with the way these changes were made and would like to see more discussion about the issues on the talk page. Buddhipriya 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to argue over this: please do adopt the article, I have plenty of more articles to fix. The article was in bad shape. The problem is a clean delineation between Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy, much material is simply repeated. Practically all the Sanskrit material is a summary from Hindu philosophy, and should be extremely compressed. Don't give a lengthy introduction on Sanskrit literature in general, link it, people can click on the link. If you want to fix this, be my guest. Also note the dubious status of Indian logic which pretty much rehashes material of Indian mathematics and Indian philosophy. Such duplication should be avoided at all cost (why? scattered and badly maintained stubs attract rambling nonsense from the blissfully uninformed, especially in Indian topics, don't ask me why), if necessary turn Indian logic into a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I increasingly am trying to find articles where some genuine collaboration can take place, rather than working either alone or in a setting of conflict. Wikipedia is most interesting to me from the point of view of collaborative behaviors. You are one of the editors that I would like to be able to collaborate with effectively. I hope you will not take my comments in a negative respect. I hope that you see me as someone who can engage in rational discussion with a view toward reaching agreement on approach. If I fail in that goal, please help me to improve by giving behavioral feedback and by participating with me on articles rather than withdrawing. Working together is best. Increasingly I see my own approach as needing to focus on fewer articles, with a much longer-term time strategy. If some improvement can be made in six months, and at the same time building a few effective working partnerships, that for me would represent a positive use of the technology.

Regarding use of the most current sources, as you know I am a big fan of using recent materials. Can you suggest the best of the most recent surveys of Indian philosophy that you would recommend as good sources for these articles? If I could get a reading list from you, I may be able to obtain those materials. Particular preference would be for overview texts that are likely to appear on the reading lists for university survey courses in Indian philosophy. Buddhipriya 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

forgive me, I did not mean to be rude. You are an excellent partner for collaboration. I just found that the articles on Indian philosophy are in such bad shape overall that some serious mucking-out is required before we can address finer points. I will look forward to your treatment of Indian philosophy, and will gladly debate open questions. It is just that Indian philosophy will never be more than a WP:SS article, that can essentially be generated automatically from its sub-articles. The real task is getting the sub-articles into solid shapes, and the summary article will then just be able to harvest material from them. dab (𒁳) 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Apple logo.svg

Hello, Dbachmann. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Apple logo.svg) was found at the following location: User talk:Dbachmann. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you :) this was more or less my point (the image was used in a discussion on copyright). dab (𒁳) 09:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Göktürk Qağans

I don't know anything about ancient writing systems of Central Asia. Could you explain to me why some people prefer to use such weird spellings with dots and other signs over the letters? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

this is Turkish spelling. The language represented is acutally Old Turkic, and if people want to use "native" spelling, they should use the romanization presented there (and above all cite their sources). The anglicized spelling of "Qağan" is Khagan. ğ is the Turkish grapheme for Turkic /ɣ/. I don't know if /qaɣan/ is the correct Old Turkic spelling, people need to cite their sources, the Khagan article claims it's /kaɣan/. dab (𒁳) 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, /k/, /q/ and /χ/ are allophones, as are /g/ and /ɣ/. The word is phonemically just /kagan/, but may well be realized as Old Turkic /qaɣan/ or /χaɣan/, I have no idea which. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

fwiiw, the Turkish seems to be Kağan. I really don't see a reason for the spelling with q- then. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

aha, it appears that Qağan can be a transliteration form the Mongolian [23] (perhaps also Azerbaijani? [24]). This sort of thing really needs to be made clear from cited sources. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your investigation. I inferred that it should have been a rendering of ancient terms in some modern Turkic language. I'd still consider it proper to routinely replace Qağan with khagan whenever I stumble upon the "modernized" spelling. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If I can add my 2 cents, historically the first researchers used whatever means they had at hand in their languages and in their professions, and however close they tried to render the particular dialect or foreign transcription (i.e. Arabic vs Persian vs Armenian etc) they were dealing with, so many-many spellings are floating around. None of the fanciful spellings can be justified from the phonetical point, unless you want to delibertely emphasize a particular dialect. With this understanding, and with consideration of facilitating googling. I support Ghirla's position with Dbachmann spelling, simple Kagan and Kaganate is all is needed to render the meaning and provide best access for googlers of different backgrounds. Neither Azerbaijani nor Turkish should be singled out as a best dialect to follow, there are dozens of other native languages, each with its own Q, or Kh, or K, Jd, J etc twist. Nowhere in the literature is a grain of semantical difference between all these "weird spellings". "Kh", for example, renders Khazarian and Kimak pronounciation, but why would anyone want to immitate Khazarian pronounciation today? "Kagan" is simpler than "Khagan", and carries as much water. Barefact 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann,

If this revert was an error, please excuse me for it. About LiveRC, it is an AJAX tool dedicated to patrolling RCs. You can find the documentation here and I made this template to advertise for it, but since it was quite buggy on en:, I just forked and corrected some code. You can see my monobook.js and CSS in order to test it. ♦ Pabix 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)