User talk:Dbachmann

This is Dbachmann's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If you want to discuss an encyclopedic topic, feel free to attract my attention by using article talkpages. I usually do react to e-mails, but as a rule I prefer to keep my interactions regarding Wikipedia above-the-board and up for everyone to see. This is also the reason for which I do not think highly of IRC admin discussions, and why I am unsure about the merit of the Wikipedia mailing-list. Decisions regarding the administration of Wikipedia in my opinion should be made on-wiki, not off.

Archives:

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 Feb 08 / 1F – 06:35, 3 Jun 08 / 20 – 15:15, 18 Nov 08 / [1] 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) [2] – 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Archiving?

Hi, umm.. your tpage is huge. ClueBot does great at archiving.. would you mind enabling it? → ROUX ₪ 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heh, it was just 333k. Let's try and reach 444 next time around :) --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Req.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitration Request by Logos5557 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logos5557 (talk • contribs)

Appearance (Venetic)

This is from Early Roman Armies (Men-at-Arms) by Nicholas Sekunda and Richard Hook,1995,ISBN-10: 1855325136,Colour plates,The Venetic fighting system,Fifth century BC, Infantry the ones of the right. Can someone make a sketch of them?Megistias (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

early chariots

Hello! I was putting together a small presentation on horseback riding and chariots and found your image on the spread of the chariot, dating the earliest chariots north of the Aral Sea ca. 2000 BC. I'm a bit confused, for the very same article on chariots state that the earliest chariots were found in Sumer, ca. 3000 BC, as I always assumed. Am I getting something wrong?--- Cheers, Louie (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is about spoke-wheeled, horse-drawn chariots. The "chariots" of EBA Sumer were essentially carts, with solid disk-wheels and drawn by asses. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So (correct me if I'm wrong), donkey-propelled, not spiked carts are earlier, perhaps sumerian, while spike-wheeled horse-drawn chariots are later, typically indoeuropean. Which actually assumes early trade or communication between indoeuropeans and sumerians at the end of the Early Bronze Age. In other words, the indoeuropeans improved an earlier technology. Right? Louie (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spokes, not spikes. Well, the wheel itself was probably invented in Sumer or thereabouts, close to 5000 BC. Your donkey-carts are the descendant technology, 2000 years later. During that time, the wheel spread across most of Eurasia, so no, the Indo-Europeans didn't need to get the wheel from the Sumerians directly, they were, by 3000 BC, just using the wheel like everyone else. The spoked wheel was an innovation of about 2000 BC, made, it would appear, not by the "Indo-Europeans" but more specifically by the early Indo-Iranians. This invention literally propelled the Indo-Iranians all over Central Asia and adjacient regions, and it wasn't, of course, long before the powers-that-be in the Near East noticed the technology and wanted to adopt it. --dab (𒁳) 18:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Empire

I don't think it's got a lot to do with nationalist ideology. The whole problem is User:Ottava Rima (remember him from January?) and his problem with me. --Folantin (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh man. As if this article didn't have enough problems already. This fellow was bad enough when he tried to argue his core subject of "literature of all types", and I can hardly wait to see what he can do here. As far as I can see he is trying to defend the insalvageable mess left by years of Persian nationalists editing the article to include anything remotely "Persian". Apparently without any indication that he is aware of what he is doing, of course. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what we've been trying to do is to repace it with either a disambiguation page or a short article explaining the concept "Persian Empire" with links to the relevant articles (Achaemenids, Sassanids etc.) - roughly on the model of the Bulgarian Empire page. What we don't want is a content fork of most of the History of Iran which gives the impression that the "Persian Empire" was some kind of more or less continuous entity since 8th century BC. Which is basically what the protected version does (with plenty of factual inaccuracies thrown in besides). --Folantin (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example of Ottava's understanding of this topic, here are some of his statements:"The Persian Empire was the series of dynasties following 600 AD." Again: "The "Persian Empire" refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." And when did the "Ottoman conquest" occur? In 1800 AD apparently: "Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD." He's also never heard of Encyclopaedia Iranica. Nevertheless, he still sees fit to pronounce that it is "not a reliable source." --Folantin (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, it seems he is more or less feeding the Persian Empire article back to you. This is what happens when you believe what you read on Wikipedia :o) Except for confusing AD and BC, and making up stuff about the Ottomans, I suppose. I have no idea. But experience has shown that this user cannot be reasoned with, what with his being far too 'educated' to be asked to bother with puny 'facts'. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's certainly been misled by Wikipedia but I'm not sure we can blame it for him making statements like "[550 BC-640 AD were] pre-Persian Empire empires, not the dynasties that made up the Persian Empire. Please get your terms correct." And: "The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that?" How indeed. --Folantin (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh. I think we didn't count our blessings when we were discussing things like Ottava Rima with him, topics on which he at least appeared to have some sort of mental grasp. --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. One final gem: "The pre-Islamic Republics were heavily influenced by the language فارسی [i.e. "Farsi", New Persian], which is not 'Iranian'." I'm still trying to figure that one out. (BTW He berated other users for "not knowing Farsi" before finally admitting he couldn't read it himself.) --Folantin (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I am beginning to appreciate OR as comic relief in the "Persian" wikidrama. Bad editors are bad, but only a few master the art of being so bad they are really great (Dr Boubouleix was such a case). --dab (𒁳) 12:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember "vandalising" the Battle of Baghdad page by removing 140K of "quality material" supplied by Geir Smith. OR's ideas about Iranian history aren't even the craziest to have appeared on Wikipedia in recent months. You should enjoy the conspiracist contributions of User:ShapurIII, an editor who believes Alexander the Great was in fact an Iranian [3]: "The evidence against continues! The lying storytellers who were illiterate and knew nothing about geography created Alexander in order to inflate the importance of an insignificant and indigent people of Greece. The Alexander historians who were a bunch of illiterate liars who didn't know geography created the myth of Alexander with all those mistakes, not knowing that 2000 years later Anush Ravid would reveal the untruth. They defeated and toppled by their Alexander all the countries and peoples who they had heard of in those days, they told much hype and lies which is easily recognizable and whoever that doesn't understand it is a real fool." (I'm just making a wild guess here - maybe User:ShapurIII and Anush Ravid are somehow connected, hmm?) Bonus rant: [4]. --Folantin (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but by now I find the nationalist kids not so interesting. They are too predictable. After a few thousand iterations of "the ancient glories of Armenia/Persia/Bharat/$MY_NATION, cradle of civilization", it becomes boring. What I realy enjoy are the true eccentrics with no obvious agenda, and OR seems to qualify for that category, at least as a junior member. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no agenda, as opposed to a group of people who dominate the fringe noticeboard in order to ensure the pushing of some of the worse POV out there with no respect for verifiability or consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair cop -- Folantin and I have conspired to hush up the 1800 Ottoman conquest of Persia, against all, ahem, verifiability. --dab (𒁳) 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out. He's spotted the "cabal". Editors with a previous interest in Iranian history working on Persian Empire. What are the chances of that happening? --Folantin (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you, sir, are a single-topic-editor and an anti-Türkic editor with an agenda of belittling the great Ottoman history of Iran, while at the same time trying to argue for "Persians" before 600 AD, and indeed for 600 BC. This is ridiculous, and against all verifiability or consensus. --dab (𒁳) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin, Dbachmann tried to back you up when you went wild at Ariosto. You have worked with him on many, many pages. I even put up the wiki contrib tool to show that. Don't pretend as if it doesn't happen, as you two troll the Fringe noticeboard just to push fringe issues. And Dbachmann, I never said anything about hushing up Ottoman conquest, so way to go. Then you claim as if I called her a single topic editor. Really? I said that she pushes fringe POV everywhere. That is more than just the topic - see how she tried to remove that Orlando Furioso is a Christian Epic even though it was pointed out that hundreds of books on criticism determine it as such. More making stuff up. Is there any possibility for you not to just make up things? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's this mysterious "she" you keep going on about? --Folantin (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my dear man, perhaps we should to take this delightful conversation to another venue so we will not be constrained by Wikipedia's endearing policies of "CIVIL" or "NPA". I am sure we would all very much express what is on our minds without such restraints. Not that you seem to be too embarassed to give yourself free rein. But really, dear, on Wikipedia, we should discuss content. As you say yourself, "verifiability". So, if you please, why do you not do us a favour and sprinkle your wisdom with some of its sources. No doubt you have excellent authorities for your claims about the "Persian Empire" of 600 to 1800 AD, but the trick would be to share them. --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how you have a flagrant disregard for meat puppetry rules, NPOV, OR, V, or most of our other principles that make up Wikipedia, feel free to be incivil here. Oh wait, you already have made it clear. You have gone around and destroyed dozen of pages for some unknown reason. Do you think it is fun to do so? Is Wikipedia just some kind of game? Do you do it simply because of people like Folantin are your "friends" so you feel the need to back them up no matter how embarrasingly wrong they are? You have always been a major problem here and there are plenty of people that recognize that. And I already shared plenty of sources, so your game above is just more of your dodging. You treat this as some kind of game, as if it is some kind of joke. Your behavior is disgusting. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am shamed. how disgusting, how could I destroy dozens of pages. No, wait. I am not, because I haven't. Because, as in the case of the Ottoman conquest of Persia, you have neglected one little thing: Reality. As in, provide the diff. --dab (𒁳) 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs for what? You make up an argument that has nothing to do with the topic or anything I've said, and then demand diffs? There is a term for someone that makes such ridiculous claims as that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So you come to my talkpage and inform me, I quote, "You have gone around and destroyed dozen of pages". Of course you cannot be expected to provide a diff or two illustrating this scandal. Nor, I suppose, can you be expected to remember the stuff you said more than a hundred minutes ago. Thus, asking for diffs for what you claimed at 20:40 will, at 22:08 not necessarily ring a bell with you, so understandably you will complain that the request "has nothing to do with the topic or anything I've said". Oh dear. And now you're going to be expected to relate to what you said at 22:08. I do sympathize with you, it can be annoying to have people keep assuming you are a genius or something. Relax and do what you do best, is what I say. Maybe go to Folantin's page again and tell him how you feel about him, so he doesn't forget about you. --dab (𒁳) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need a lesson in grammar. Your statement above says that I need diffs about the Ottoman Empire. If you want to ask for diffs about you destroying pages, then ask about it. However, all I would have to do is link to your contribution summary. I don't think you've laid off harming Wikipedia for more than a week, if even that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like a true encyclopedist. I suppose that 'all you have to do' to back up any of your claims is point us to the Library of Congress, eh. I would be delighted to sit at your lotus feet and be instructed in the art of English grammar, and I meekly confess that my poor attempts at expressing myself are pathetic in comparison to grammatical gems such as "destroyed dozen of pages" or "diffs about you destroying pages" or "because of people like Folantin are your friends" or "plenty of people that recognize that". Ah, the language of Shakespeare... spoken by so many but mastered by so few ... oh, my boys, my boys... We’re at the end of an age. We live in a land of weather forecasts and breakfasts that set in; shat on by Tories, shovelled up by Labour. And here we are, we three... perhaps the last island of beauty in the world

Now, which of you is going to be a splendid fellow and go down to the Rolls for the rest of the wine? --dab (𒁳) 22:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"any of your claims is point us to the Library of Congress, eh" and yet here I am - I posted many references on the Persian Empire page which proved both you and Folantin wrong, and then I pointed out how easy it was to see how many times your edits match up, how you two tag team on multiple pages, and how you ignorantly followed her to Ariosto to cause disruptions while ignoring the academic consensus. Oh, but yes, -I- am the one not providing evidence. The thing is, -you- haven't provided evidence or -any- contribution to this encyclopedia that couldn't be seen as destructive. You try to hide by pointing the finger, adding snide comments, and the rest. But really, you haven't defended yourself at all. That just proves that you can't defend yourself, because you know that you are a major disruption. Oh, I love how you try to point out grammar. Oh no, a missed plural. But then your second example isn't even grammatically incorrect, nor is the third, or even the fourth. But I wouldn't expect someone who can't even introduce subjects to their sentences or claim that an object of a thought is found four sentences prior even though multiple new subjects were introduced. Do you care? No, because you are squirming and doing whatever you can to wriggle out of the fact that everyone knows that you are here to destroy the place and don't even have a defense. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets analyze some of the filth, the deception, and some of the pure fabrications in Dbachmann's history. How about this purely disgusting one: "so, it seems no coincidence that Coleridge is both seen as the originator (although according to Folantin he isn't, really) of the terminology "romantic epic" applied to Ariosto as used by Folantin" And yet he only says "romantic". Is the term "romantic epic" used? No. Are the quotes even using the word "epic" in them? But according to you, they are. Funny how you make up a word out of -nothing- in order to fabricate some kind of evidence. Then this wonderful followup - "it was also the 18th to 19th century "Romantics" who made "romance" a term relating to "fantastic/heroic quest literature":" It is just -wonderful- how you thing "romantic" is the same word as "romance". Lets forget that they are used in completely different ways and have completely different connotations! But since you are just making things up, that doesn't matter, right? Then you say "note how Ariosto comes up right at the top in the proper seach for "romantic epic" on google books." And yet Google books doesn't have it. It didn't have such then, nor now. Sure, Spenser comes up, but only as a subtitle and not in legitimately recognized criticism. Does Ariosto? Only in regards to Barbara Reynolds, a lecturer and not a full time professor who created a crappy translation and has since been replaced by three others that are actually correct in their translation. This beauty even makes it clear that Southey was the one to really create "Romantic Epic" as it matches the term. Southey doesn't seem like a pre-19th century Italian. Well, maybe in your version of reality he is. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, why are you referring to me as "she"? I'm sure I've told you several times I'm not (most recently here [5]). In the words of a great man: "If you can't even get my gender correct, how can you expect people to think that you have any ability to read or be informed on any topic?" [6]. We've already been through your obsession about there being some deep difference between "romantic epic" and "romance epic" when applied to Ariosto. You were even invited to change the page to say "romance epic", an invitation you declined for some unknown reason. Plus, I'm not sure I trust the expertise of somebody who describes Malory's Le Morte d'Arthure as a work of "Renaissance prose". --Folantin (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "Southey doesn't seem like a pre-19th century Italian." No, but Torquato Tasso does. Had you searched a bit further in the volume you were quoting, you would have found this [7]: "[Napoleon] loved Tasso's Romantic epic Jerusalem Delivered (1581)".--Folantin (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkytown

Although I don't have any strong views one way or the other about the section Dinkytown (talk · contribs) disputes in EGE. I see that they are acting intemperately and not waiting for responses. I am afraid this is behaviour which, if continued, will probably lead to a block. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this user is misbehaing. But I am staying out of it until I get a chance to rewrite that section. It is true that it had been tagged for too long. It's not as terrible as the tags make out, but it should be improved. Of course, people now waste time edit-warring over the fixed version instead of sitting down and between them carve out an improvement, as in, like, the basic idea of Wikipedia. It is easy to break such a deadlock by investing half an hour of work and fixig the problems with the piece in question. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]