User talk:Dbachmann/archiveB

Info

This may interest you. Alx-pl D 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Serbs

I think the article would profit from your expertise. Currently, there are such phrases as: "In the Caucasus, the homeland of the Sarmatian Serbs...", "We can call them 'Volga Serbs', as they possible moved to the east and went deep into Siberia and left its traces in the names of cities and towns along the coast of the Sea of Japan", etc, etc. All this smacks of original research. I would like to know your opinion on the subject. --Ghirlandajo 12:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is a plausible theory that the modern Serbs took their name from a totally unrelated ethnic group, probably of Iranian stock. In this case, the article should clearly say so instead of lumping together all similar placenames from the Baltic Sea to the Sea of Japan. I found in Vasmer that the name of Serbs may descend from PIE *ser-v- ("to guard"). A regular derivation in the Scythian language would be *хаrv-, which could have led to the Slavic form *хrvati, latinized in Western European languages as Croats. --Ghirlandajo 16:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, *serb- and *xarv- were two alternative forms ultimately derived from the same source - PIE *ser-v-. The former form evolved to Serb, and the latter form evolved to Hrvat. --Ghirlandajo 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Vasmer cites Moszinski on this account. Per him, Serb is the original Slavic form, whereas Hrvat is a loan/translation from some Iranian language (Scythian?) --Ghirlandajo 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ogham

I just wanted to say thanks for adding the research on Fenius legends etc. to the Ogham article, it is extremely fascinating and I learned some things from it! Regards ፈቃደ 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh.. no grump pov warriors! Speaking of which, I'm surprised noone's mentioned Barry Fell... I don't know why his name is so unmentionable, it's like you're not even allowed to say it or something... He has written several books, ya know... Couldn't we just add something brief under 'Distribution', like: "The controversial scholar Barry Fell believed that examples of Ogham could also be found scattered across Spain and Portugal, not to mention New England, Oklahoma, and elsewhere" ... ? ፈቃደ 18:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Frogs and tonal Greek

In this edit, you state that "A famous example of such a case is from Aristophanes' Frogs, where he refers to an actual occurrence at the performance of Sophocles' Orestes where an actor had pronounced galēn' horō 'I see calm waters' with so much empathy that it came out galên horō 'I see a weasel'." What's your source for this? It would be useful for the Ancient Greek phonology article, but I can't find anything of the sort in The Frogs, and that article is disputed sufficiently that I can't go adding stuff without sources.

Thanks. —Simetrical (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, my source is the Byzantine scholia in Ranes, where the bit in Aristophanes is explained. I sort of "published" it here (page 2, fn 5), but it's a well known anecdote. Anyway, it should be enough to drive the point home to just compare Frogs 304 with Orestes 279. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the online versions don't seem to have line numbering. Could you point me to the appropriate lines, if it's not too much trouble? (Also, according to our article on Orestes (play), it was written by Euripides, not Sophocles—do you mean Electra, or did Sophocles also write an Orestes as well?) —Simetrical (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic conquest of Iran

Dear D, if you have the energy, a calming hand at the above article would be appreciated. The article was POV as heck -- I completely rewrote it -- I included one section entitled "The Arabization of the Persians and the Persianization of the Arabs". This section evoked a nationalist frenzy, with various Iranian editors turning it into a panegyric to the resistance of the Persian language to Arabization and claims that everything good in Islamic civilization was done by the Persians, not those Arabs, neener, neener. I tried compromising by completely deleting the section, but now Paradoxic and Amir85 are restoring their version whenever I try to take it out.

Oh well, there's a bright side -- the earlier part of the article has been completely untouched by the revert wars. It's factual, it's dry-as-dust, and it doesn't seem to prod the sleeping jingo beast. Can you help me turn the rest of the article into something completely soporific? Zora 10:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. That Rajput article is a horror. I actually tried to intervene for a while and got called a Paki bigot for my pains. I don't have the time to do the research that it would take to write a good article. Those guys are less interested in writing a good article than they are in fighting each other. If it was real life, there'd be blood on the floor. Zora 11:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, sweet. Thanks for the barnstar. I feel alone and tired a lot of the time, and support helps. Zora 04:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

user:Diatrobica;l who has had no contribs beside joining the guild and voting oppose on afd is spamming other users to vote oppose. Many don't even know what's going on. Please see what you can do. He is clearly a sockpuppet. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah however block should be longer so that he has time to slow down. :) Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that inviting people off other religious articles such as Christian ones (eg christmas article) is wrong especially now since there is a feeling that this has been voted Afd simply because of strange reasoning by SlimVirgin. Anyways thanks and please keep an eye on this if you can. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali

If you have the energy (as Zora stated above) maybe you could see what you think of the two versions. I agree with Zora which isn't surprising but I want an outside view if you have the time. I know this kind of thing is tiring, sorry... I'm tired of it too. I would like to have an outside view and I find you to be a pretty neutral voice in all of this. Only if you have time, of course. gren グレン 07:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Imposter?

User:Dbhman, no edits as of yet. --BadSeed 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!

Hi dab! Congratulations of some great work in removing unreferenced material from Hinduism related articles. Wikipedia needs more editors like you! deeptrivia (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright Status

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I don't think you are legally correct about "a manual copy is still a copy" on Image:MoriaSmall.JPG. Barbara Strachey, Karen Wynn Fonstadt, the Encyclopedia of Arda, various Roleplaying Games, and dozens of other sources have all created their own versions of the map of Middle-earth and claim copyright to them despite these all being clearly copied from Christopher Tolkien's original version in the books. Like those maps, my image of the moria gate is not an exact copy... I did not copy Tolkien's image but rather created a new image that looks a great deal like it. A fine distinction, but one which seems to make a valid legal difference. Trademark protection is different in that if I were to create an image that looked like the 'JRRT monogram', which the Tolkien estate uses as a trademark, it would be in violation of their rights to that particular distinctive mark. As I understand it the same is not true of every image. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't plan to add the portal link to all Tolkien related articles (in fact, it isn't on J. R. R. Tolkien). I'm still not sure how many of the Middle-earth articles it should be on. Definitely the major topics (most of which I've already added it to). I did put it on a couple of less significant Middle-earth pages while revising categories, but I don't plan to link all of them. On the positioning... I checked a dozen articles linked to various portals at random and they ALL had the portal link at the top of the page. I've generally put the link towards the bottom on pages where it can't be linked at the top without moving other images, but the standard seems to be to include them at the top. I wasn't sure about the 'speak, friend, and enter' bit, but I thought anyone interested in Middle-earth would get it (along with the door image = 'portal'). I've planned to change it if people are confused. Did you have any other thoughts on the 'copyright' issue above? I'd like to classify the image correctly, but I'm not sure what the standards are. It seems to me that it, like the various maps, wouldn't be under Tolkien's copyright. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added some text to the image page noting minor differences from Tolkien's original which are still visible and explaining the two different possible explanations for using the image. Don't worry about removing or relocating the portal link - I'd seen that you moved it on one page (Exhibit?) and don't have a problem with it. I'm making some large scale organizational changes and expect some of them to be incorrect / adjusted by others. I'll put a question about the portal text and some other issues on the project talk page for comments. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old English language

Hi, could you take a look at Old English language? User:Sandertje has changed the sentence "In terms of morphology modern German is more similar to Old English than modern English itself is, because it still has complex gender, case, and verb conjugation systems similar to those of Old English" to say "modern Dutch" instead, and has added his translations of a few lines of Beowulf into Dutch to prove his point. It seems to me modern German is morphologically (not phonologically) much closer to OE than modern Dutch is, and that a few lines of text translated into Dutch wouldn't prove anything even if his claim were true. I've already reverted him three times and don't want to violate 3RR. Thanks! --Angr (t·c) 20:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Dab, I can't believe you chickened out of the Rajput talkpage just because somebody made racial comments. That attack was manifestly calculated and probably also concerted; it should not be allowed to succeed. Wikipedia cannot be left to the foul likes of the abuse brigade. Can the composition of a reference text be left entirely to the unread, unlettered and uncouth??

I greatly admired the patience and diligence with which you engaged with that gaggle and sought to educate them on the norms of civilised discourse. That object was of course hopeless; you should have saved your breath and used your admin powers to curtail their nuisance. I now urge you to:

protect the rajput page again and keep it locked for a prolonged period; and
move towards permanently blocking as many of those irremediable users as possible, after getting your proposed acts vetted by a few other admins.

You should also concurrently do something to curtail the interventions of civil but adamant users who persist in editing the rajput page to reflect the incredible idea that some muslims are rajputs and vice versa. ImpuMozhi 21:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity you feel impelled to withdraw, especially under these circumstances. Having tasted blood after hectoring an admin out of their way, it is unlikely that (congenitally loudmouthed) mob will be amenable to reason for a long time to come.

A reading of their posts indicates (I may be wrong) that the group is not really bigoted but merely uneducated. The old listing of 60 rubbishy reference books suggests likewise. Hence I withdraw the "bigot" word from the above. It is the case, Dab, that fringe groups which are marginalized in civic society grow massive on the internet for precisely that reason. This particular group is in fact utterly rampant on the net, and I fear that much havoc will be wrecked on WP if this is left uncurbed. Is there nothing that can be done? Anyway, I am sure you did all that could be expected. Ciao around WP - ImpuMozhi 22:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bigotry almost always goes hand in hand with poor education. If you are intelligent and educated and still a bigot, you must be either evil or mad. dab (ᛏ) 13:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your merger of Indian subcontinent into South Asia

Hi dab, I recognize that you have carried out the above merger. I am in fact looking for any discussion that may have happened in this regard. If you could point it out to me please. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 09:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you could refer here for the context.

Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad

What is actually the corrent name for this article? Is there a better place to move it to so that more people can read it as it is supposed to be read? -- Francs 2000 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why didn't you do anything to prevent the moving from Macedonian Slavs to Macedonian (ethnic group)? This was done without a vote and without a public discussion. Furthermore the article's name was about the ethnic group, and not the nationality, and unlike most editors this is something that you had understood. The ethnic group is referred as "Macedonian Slavic" even in Britannica, and according to WP:policy it's the one that should be used. Now this article is the paradise of POV pushing, until recently it wrote that Slav Macedonians are the ancestors of the Ancient Macedonians. I know that you probably you don't care about any of this, but I hope that you at least recognize the flaws in the wikipedia's decision-making system. Miskin 15:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dbachmann was offline at that period. I've noticed yesterday that at the big poll the second group of votes were divided among various opinions and it was interpreted as a "tie". The second (small) poll that got the article renamed was totally out of procedure. I think a good and fair disambiguation term is needed User_talk:FlavrSavr#news, User_talk:Matia.gr#Re:news. After my protests for the small poll (9 votes, while in the big there were about 70 votes), Zocky had proposed as a neutral solution Macedonians (Slavic people) if I remember correctly. talk to +MATIA 15:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

request

I had left notes at Tony Sidaway and Kwamikagami, about an improper (in my opinion) pov move. Please check Talk:Reconstructed_pronunciation_of_ancient_Greek#Renaming. Thanks. talk to +MATIA 15:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zweihander

I have some disagreements with your re-edit of the zweihander page. Although I agree I did make some errors.

"(the title Meister des langen Schwertes was granted by the Marx brotherhood)"

The term langen schwertes refers to a longsword, not a zweihander. They are similar, but the langschwert that was the primary weapon the Marx brother regulated is used differently than a zweihander.

I deleted the Goliath section because the WMA community doesn't agree that the Goliath manuscript depicts zweihanders. It seems that the community agrees that zweihanders and longswords were used differently. This thread on SFI talks about this briefly. A zweihander is used like something between a longsword and a polearm, not the pure longsword techniques used in Goliath.

I've seen a lot of your edits on WMA, HEMA and Liechtenauer tradition articles. What is your background anyway?

Your message

Dieter Perspectives is what it is all about. You feel we are a hateful mob and we feel that you guys are operating with head in the sand because an unreasonable POV is acceptable to you without proper references.

Think about the page you like most on WP and then imagine someone comes along with some arbitrary unreferenced POV and just trashed the fundamental nature of that page. Would this be reasonable?

Parallel on Rajput page. Ibbetson was cited by muslims and Ibbetson was cited again by us to show that hindu rajputs who started practicing widow remarriage were immediately outcasted by others and lost there rajput status. If this could happen to hindu rajputs people who even changed there religion stood no chance of remaining rajputs. Historical truth is what should be mentioned. Truth is some rajputs converted to Islam. What is not true is that these converted guys are still rajputs.

The fact that these statements do not mean anything to you implies : a) You are not able to understand the relevance of such quotes. b) You have made up your mind what side you want to be on.

I do not know if it is a) or b). Sometimes I feel it is b).

Shivraj Singh 20:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only rajputs converting to Islam but son of rajput from non rajput hindu mothers were not considered rajputs. We are not here to assuage somebody's feelings few hundred years after there ancestors did something which there children are ashamed of today and want to rejin the stem they broke off from.

This POV by muslims is actually akin to hijacking of WP by random muslim POV which has no support on the ground. I know it is hard for you to comprehend.

What Kasturi mentions in her book is just saying some rajputs converted to Islam which I already mentioned on my version.

If you read a book you have to figure out how the auhor does there research. Every Phd starts off with a "new thesis" so that they can defend there work. Kasturi was in England and at Yale when she worked on that book i.e far away from ground. Unfortunately none of your refereces other thant Tod and Lindsay have any value but you are still pushing them. Why? I hope not just because u found them?

Shivraj Singh 21:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Soul

I am very thankful and delighted that you got the point amongst all the confusion. Yes I believe we can interchange the terms although there are a few differences between Islam and Bhakti but I think this time maybe it is me who is having difficulty comprehending what was said :)

Also my friend Shiv has said that by adopting to widow marriage, one immediately ceased to be a Rajput. If he accepts that if shown a counter example, he will take off his claims, I can provide you with some :)

خرم Khurram 21:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally speaking I have no issue in accepting Shiv's version only if he provides with historical facts. All that he is providing till now is myths taken out from fancy stories. Muslim Rajputs even existed in Rajasthan, in Mewar the Muslim Rajputs were in great number and the Bhatner fort had been ruled by the Muslim Bhatti Rajputs till 19th century. I know that in the post 70s era much has been written to support and promote the religious rhetoric on both sides of the border but must we let the logic and fact go away in favor of it? I have no problem if we find an accepted historical statement that the Muslims are not Rajputs but whatever I am finding is the contrary to it. Sadfully we still are not able to initiate a scientific approach to this page and until this is done, I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

Also please see the message that our friend user:Shivraj Singh has left under "Sher Shah Suri".

خرم Khurram 21:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am touched by your optimism but after almost more than two months on this article and discussion, I am afraid that you will also leave hopeless like many other editors. I would love to have an unbiased, historically true article on Rajputs but so far there is not much to hope and expect. If we can at least make few people to start thinking outside of their pre-determined mindset then we can make some progress. This feat, I am afraid is harder than what it seems to be.

Your contribution and presence are the only positives going on right now and I hope you will be able to make it through.

خرم Khurram 22:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Rajput

The references part is what I sought the clarification on. When you started building a references section, it appeared as though you were building a list of good/suitable books that one could refer to, to build that article with .... certainly, your list (Bhattacharya-DeWitt-Dirk--) has nothing in common with Shivraj's list. Is it the case that you have made original contributions to your version of the article, based on the reading-list cited by you?? I thought that that was unlikely, and so I renamed your list "suggested reading".

You are greatly mistaken in imagining that "Bhakti" and "Islam" mean the same thing, even at some metaphysical level. It is not so; and as for the meanings of the words: "Bhakti" translates exactly to the English "devotion" while "Islam" translates to "Submission". It is often imagined that "Islam" translates to "Peace", but this is not so; even were it so, that still is not "Bhakti". I have a strong suspicion that what Khurram meant when he made his "muslim soul" comment was that subcontinental muslims & rajputs share a certain acceptance of violence, macho he-man culture, and (self-)image of dominance/rulership. He was making a fraternity call.

This is neither here nor there, but Khurram's apparent amenability to anything the White Man thinks up or suggests is revealing. Do not let it bias you in favour of that PoV. They should leave the main rajput page to standard rajputs and make a separate page dealing with the fringe community of "muslim-rajputs". In this connection, I commend your attention to this, a previous talk-page intervention I made. ImpuMozhi 22:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ogham letter names

Mr Bachmann, I consider your recent changes of Ogham names from the standardized names to Old Irish names to be ~~vandalism~~ suboptimal. I object, and I want the changes reverted. Evertype 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with regard to what you left on my own talk page. it is my opinion that making those name changes was ~~vandalism~~ suboptimal. There was no reason to change the names. I suggest further discussion on the Ogham talk page. Evertype 12:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you names. I said that I considered the act of changing the names without discussion was an act of ~~vandalism~~ suboptimal. That's my opinion. I am, as I have said, taking this up on the Ogham talk page. Evertype 13:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Evertype 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tug on sleeve

Hi. You commented a while ago regarding a style sheet implemented solution to the BC/BCE debacle. I'm just letting you know that there's been a rekindling of interest in that issue, due to recent edit wars, and I've copied and pasted some of your ideas to a several-months-dormant technical proposal, in particuar, to its talk page. I wouldn't know a style sheet from a archaeopteryx, so I thought I'd get your attention, as someone who suggested the idea once, and might still be interested. If you've got some knowledge, I've got some energy and drive to put a workable proposal together for a Developer to look at - interested? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turan

Hello, I've been asked by several people to look into Turan, where some revert warring is going on. As I have no expertise on the subject, I thought you might be of more help. Please take a look if you have time. They need a third opinion. --Ghirlandajo 09:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

"Any administrators who are involved in the dispute must not edit this page whilst it is protected"

This statement wasn't aimed at any admins specifically, just in general in case one gets involved. I'll keep an eye on the page and talk page as much as I can. Fir e Fox 11:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you let me know where I can post a support statement for you? I have never been in such a place and don't know the procedures. ImpuMozhi 23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected Rajput for now. See Talk:Rajput. Fir e Fox 11:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I believe you to be involved is for the reason I wrote just now on Talk:Rajput - you have edited the article to revert. I have not. Therefore I think it is best I do the blocking as appropriate, from a neutral point of view. Because you reverted a particular editors changes, this shows you have a 'slight' bias to either a certain point of view, or against a particular editor(s). Fir e Fox 13:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hare Krishna

I have been working hard to create a general, well grounded view on a number of pages, especially the Hare Krishna page. I believe it offers a non-biased view which most informed Gaudiya-Vaishnavas would agree with, wether in Iskcon or not. I do not beleive that the mis-informed 'scholarly' view you are pushing is any more neutral. I will not tolerate the degeneration of these pages just because you are an official Admin.

Note 2) This page is now looking very clear and readable, and it has a neutral viewpoint. I have added in the link to the Kali-Santarana Upanishad. I personally find the strange font distracting (as in the title of Kali-Santarana). I really can't see any further reason for changing it drastically? Thankyou for helping to sharpen it up. 22/12/2005

Gouranga

1) I do not represent 'ISKCON', I represent the truth as held by a large number of Gaudiya-Vaishnava organisations.

2) Gouranga, in this instance means Golden Limbed, not 'White Bodied'. As I'm sure you know each Sanskrit term has many possible meanings, but specifically in this case it refers to Lord Caitanya's Golden hue. Gouranga is used to mean 'Lord Chaitanya' not 'someone who's white bodied'. I have given the literal description in the second passage below the pop culture version. Both in the UK & USA 'Gouranga' is a known as a part of popular everyday culture, not connected just with the 'Hare Krishna's - see Computer Games etc... also incorporating the word.

Note 3) This page is very clear and coherant, I see no further reason to change it. Thank you for your input, some of which has been noted and has led to certain amendments. I don't think that to add all of the meanings of the word Gouranga makes any sense, as they are too numerous to mention. 22/12/2005

An RFC against you

I have filed it and here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29 --DPSingh 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

who gave internet access to these people :( ? dab (ᛏ) 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rofl, restrain, my friend...

Sticky

Would you mind giving me a hand in preventing the matter from going further and completely out of control? Please... --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 18:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, you did. Will try and sort it out (unfortunately uhv hit the wrong nerve, I'm afraid). Request edit/comment ceasefire (be it one-sided) for a day or two.

Would this ever end? your pain is visible... am feeling sorry for that :( But, hope and wish you take a nice break during this holiday season. Merry Christmas.

Oops... I tried to tell you to be watchful there...

input request

Would you mind looking in on Talk:Jesus H. Christ#"Bored church attendees"? Thanks for your time. Tom e r ^talk 00:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alexander the Great

At the risk of getting you involved in something you may have grown weary of, maybe you want to check out Talk:Alexander the Great#Macedonians, Greeks, about a recent edit conflict. Alexander 007 02:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delay for the paleolythic continutiy

I am very sorry that I shall not be able to edit the Paleolithic continuity theory by Epiphany. I was asked to do a job that will take all my spare time, or almost all, until March at least. In the last three weeks I tried to check whether I could do this job while at the same time reading through Alinei's books again, but I found that it is not possible. However, the task is only delayied, in April I shall be back. Guparra 07:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

No, no, don't leave -- I'm not an admin! Those guys only respect FORCE. You've got force, I don't. No, I don't want it, either -- I lose my temper too easily.

I really don't have energy for another fight. I'm coping with Iranian Shi'a with persecution complexes right now.

Seems clear to me that any real world dispute that has people killing each other (Northern Ireland, Israel-Palestine, Iran-Iraq war, communal riots in India) has a concommitant effect on Wikipedia -- any articles dealing with the disputes become take-no-quarter battlegrounds. I dunno how to damp the verbal violence and intransigeance -- I wish I did. Zora 09:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ّ:yes, please donot go, You have tamed them a little bit, I hope if yo stay for little more time these Double S's will get more civilized or they will have to leave wikipedia.

and soory to say im not much familer with Roman urdu. Here is guidence for roman urdu in urdu. Actually im too busy in Urdu version of wikipedia. I'm only 1 of few editors there. so ur.wikipedia needs me alot more then this one.Wisesabre 10:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I told you Dab. That is why I said that I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. The rhetoric is so strongly embedded in their minds that they are close to every logic. At least now you can see why whoever ventured into India always succeeded. I, for one, am getting tired of all this. What can you do when you have to convince a group of persons who have their minds, ears and eyes shut to every logic?

خرم Khurram 19:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hare Krishna and Gouranga

I took a quick look only, but to me this looks like a content dispute. I wouldn't call this vandalism. On Hare Krishna, I like your version much better, but I think also including some pronunciation guidelines or even a transliteration using "normal" (:-)) letters for laypeople couldn't hurt (I, for one, have no idea what IAST is...) Your intro and history sections are much better, but despite all this, and the fact that blindly reverting is bad, I don't think one could call this "vandalism". On Gouranga, yours is a vast improvement, but the intro should also mention that in popular culture it just means "be happy" (if it does—I haven't the slightest idea), otherwise the second paragraph makes no sense at all. I think calling it an "alleged translation" is unnecessary, just stating "in popular culture" is enough. On the second change further down, your "by the ISKCON" was definitely an NPOV-improvement over the original "by many", but maybe the current "Within Vaishnava tradition it is said by many" is also good enough. (Again, I wouldn't know.) In short: treat it as a content dispute, try to argue with the person, and try to find other respected editors knowledgeable in the area. I'm afraid that I can't help much, because I just don't know nothing about Indian and Indian-inspired religious movements. If 3RRs occur, report them. HTH, Lupo 16:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a borderline case. You should try very hard not to treat it as vandalism for the time being. As you are involved in editing and trying to improve these articles, it would be inappropriate for you to block for 3RR anyway. I see that this has been going on for three days now; that's long enough. I'll block if they keep doing this, but I would urge you to try out some of the suggestions I hinted at above and not simply revert to "your" version either. Try to incorporate things from the other version, too, and try to find a way to present the matter in a way that is accessible not only to linguists but also try to cater to laypeople's understanding. BTW, the IPs involved are all from British Telecom, the 86.*.*.* ones are broadband accesses. I've left a warning that I will consider this vandalism at Talk:Hare Krishna, and if this blind reverting without discussion continues, I will block. But I would much prefer it if some compromise version could be arrived at. Lupo 07:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've taken a stab at merging the two versions myself. Lupo 08:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just responding to Lupo's 3RR report which was certainly valid. Once I did a revert, I was no longer clear to do a block which I also felt was warranted. I am NOT familar with the subject matter so I can't say who has it reight. I think he definitely needs to learn how to use this wiki if nothing else. Hope I didn't appear to take sides on this, as I was just trying to find a happy medium. I'll monitor and if a block is warranted, he/she will get a warning and then a block idf it happens again and I'll direct to appropriate reading material so they can learn how this process works.--MONGO 19:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, will see what I can do. This 'polising' is eating up too much time already. Sometimes I wonder what is the meaning of life? Just kidding, but lets take a moment to ponder about the time one spends on wiki: it should be either gathering knowledge or contributing it. And I had been involved to the least in either of them recently. Has anyone written something like "managing people on wiki while your immediate need is to take a leak"? Now, that would be interesting! :-) Jokes aside, wiki has thought about disruption, but I think a "WikiSchool" will be a real good idea as a preventive measure (Not that I am an old horse here, but I think it would surely help save a lot of man-hours based on what I have seen so far). Anyway, hope you have a nice time-out over the holidays. Cheers. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 16:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Hallo Dab, bitte hilf mir: Can you tell me please the IP of user:ßonaparte? Bonaparte talk 16:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Dab für die schnelle Antwort. Ich wünsche dir eine schöne Weihnacht und ein guten rutsch ins neue Jahr! -- Bonaparte talk 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veles (god)

You may want to take a look at the new version of this article, if you are interested in pagan deities. --Ghirla | talk 23:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lieber Herr Bachmann,koennten Sie mir bitte einmal schreiben? (Mir haent nix gegen uuseinandersetzungen, solange sie wisssenschaftlich und uusgewogen sind. -- Leider ischt mein alemannisch nicht mehr was es vor 30 Jahren war). Froehliche Weihnachten, MW (witzel@fas,harvard,edu)

contemporary speakers?

Sehr geehrter Herr Bachmann. Vor kurzem haben Sie im (englischen) Wikipedia Artikel „Indo-European“ meine Ergänzung zu den Indoeuropäer (Indo-Europeans) rückgängig gemacht. Als Grund nennen Sie, dass sämtliche Sprecher indoeuropäischer Sprachen nicht als Indoeuropäer zu bezeichnen sind, sondern als „zeitgenössische“ Sprecher, was immer dies auch heissen mag.

Diese Auffassung scheint aber nicht der gängigen Praxis in diesem Aspekt zu entsprechen. So werden beispielsweise in der deutschen Wikipedia immerhin die Sprecher von indoeuropäischen Sprachen auch als Indoeuropäer (Indogermanen) anerkannt. Ob man dies auch im umstrittenen ethnischen Gesichtspunkt so sagen kann, lasse ich mal aussen vor. mfg und schöne Feiertage, --80.218.146.210 13:01, 24. Dez 2005 (CEST)

Image:Zartosht.jpg

Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AZartosht.jpg&diff=32644510&oldid=23534510. The image doesn't look like 18th century, though :) --Ghirla | talk 12:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hesychius of Alexandria

I fixed the Wikisource link on the above page. Please use {{Wikisourcelang|Insert lang|link|Insert title here}} when linking to non-english works. And be sure to click on the link you make to be sure it works before leaving the page.--BirgitteSB 17:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes there are a great deal of broken links. I am page on 30 of a search list I have run, checking links and between 20-30% are broken. I is great thing that all the site are set up so similarly that I can guess what the Searh butotn is, etc. and find them on sites I can't actually read to fix the links. The above page was just re-added to the English WS in the past two weeks because people follow the link to the "Create the Page" prompt and don't realize they are on the English site. So they are causeing a great deal of wasted effort--BirgitteSB 17:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I didn't become active there till after the split. But imagine it will always be the sort of project that requires a lot of maintence. Hopefully I will be able to fix most of most of these bad links within the week.--BirgitteSB 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Rajput

Who is Raja, in DPSingh's comments? Fir e Fox 18:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I blocked DPSingh for a personal attack. Fir e Fox 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

surya-not-bandar!!

My dear dab, I empathise in your frustration -- after the hectoring-heckling-vilification, now they are stalking you. Sleep over it, keep your dignity, remember my nation's motto, do not stoop to bandying reverts with the likes of the outlaw ape. Further orders --keep warm (and stay cool!) this holiday season, Merry Christmas to you, anfreunden!

Sourcing

What happens when some people just ignore the Discussion pages and keep reverting to an unsourced version, removing a POV tag, and refuse to provide sources for their edits. Do I have the right to keep reverting as much as it takes? To me this falls under "official policy vandalism", hence 3RR shouldn't apply on the reverts, but I need to make sure with an administrator. Miskin 18:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho ho!

You've had a difficult few weeks. Here's a little wikilove and holiday fun! [1] Be sure your computer speakers are turned on :) Zora 07:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Latin (?)

Was going thru the character set of some of the fonts. Found ņ while looking for ṇ. Was wondering if both are same (the former has a comma like below-mark, compared to a dot in the later)? --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 13:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. just updated Shiva Sutra with IAST. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 14:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes sense, will do. (somehow, my browser - IE - is not recognizing these characters unless i drop them within {{IAST}}. But am sure its a common prob). --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Could you point me to where I can get the capital forms for {{IAST}}? --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

never mind... was a stupid question anyway. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 10:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes dab. I was thinking something similar while doing that {{IAST}} stuff that we can in fact live with one introductory IASTization. Thanks for the IAST chars. Ṛ for Rigveda took me a while to find out (will correct it now). FYI, all of the IAST characters are part of "Latin Extended Additional" block, and under MS Windows they are available as glyphs in Tahoma TTF (I unnecessarily cracked my head for two hours at unicode.org!). Now, what are your thoughts about the idea of creating a template that displays a "IAST done" kind of a message on the article, and also adds it under the IAST category? --ΜιĿːtalk 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on 1) the non-graphic template like {{IPA}}. 2) maintain IASTText category. 3) {{Devnagari}} is a good idea, only that it should not turn out to be a spring-board for individual templates for all individual languages... Going good! Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 08:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Krishna

Thanks for the info. I've uploaded a new version of the image concerned to Wikipedia. Thanks --Deepak|वार्ता 18:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise?!?

Hello, Dbachmann. First, that theory (Slavonic-related etc.) is not "invented" by me. Many historians around the world (not only in R. Macedonia) are accepting it. As you know, the origin of the Ancient Macedonian language is highly disputed amongst the historians and other scientists. So, I think it's fair to mention this theory, too ('caus many are accepting the opinion that the Slavs were inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula before, as today is thought, their coming to the Balkans). Comment? Cheers, Bomac 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Workshop. Fred Bauder 00:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:MalayalamScript

Template:MalayalamScript has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:MalayalamScript. Thank you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small Request

You seem to be pretty busy, but I just wanted to point out what I've done over at Talk Ásatrú - I attempted to archive the page, but apparently botched it up. Would you mind taking a minute to fix it and comment if you feel like it? Also, if you could hold my hand and show me how to properly archive, I'd appreciate it! -- HroptR 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satem

Did you make those two maps? It looks like you did. Could you please explain to me why Romania is showed as being a part of the Satem language? On the other map, showing the world in 2000 BC, it shows Dacia and Thracia as being a part of the Satem family, but that is not sure, is it, now? --Anittas 12:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwamedha live

Was wondering if this might interest you:

Live on internet - Ashwamedha Yagna in Madurai, India

http://www.sanskartv.co.in/live.htm

Sanskar channel is going to broadcast the Aswamedha Yagna in Madurai, organized by All World Gayatri Pariwar, live on internet at the above site at the following timings:

(Eastern Standard Time, USA) 1. Between 11:00 p.m. on 12/29 and 2:00 a.m. on 12/30 and between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on 12/30

2. Between 11:00 p.m. on 12/30 and 2:00 a.m. on 12/31 and between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on 12/31

Flyer: http://www.awgp.org/english/yagya/english_madurai.pdf

Happy New Year! deeptrivia (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please clean up page moves

You recently moved Ancient Vedic units of measurement to Hindu units of measurement but forgot to fix the double redirects. I've fixed them, but be more careful when moving pages in the future! :-) Thanks for reading, and a Happy New Years. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hello Dab, I wish you a happy New Year 2006!

In general (despite some disagreements) I highly appreciate your contributions. --Machaon 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The First one

Dear dab, Happy new year! Its a pleasure to be the first in 2006 to drop you a line :-) Wish you a fantastic year ahead. Happy editing & Cheers! --ΜιĿːtalk 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an AFD

Hi, I wonder if you'd be willing to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golf-gulf merger. It didn't generate much discussion but there are four delete votes and two keep votes, of which one keep vote was from an anon. I shouldn't close it myself since I'm involved. Thanks and Happy New Year! --Angr (t·c) 08:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Mo0 already did. --Angr (t·c) 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, it had sat there with an {{unreferenced}} warning since July and no references were forthcoming. And even people who said they had the merger themselves voted to delete, because they couldn't find any references to verify it. --Angr (t·c) 17:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic Neopaganism - should we spawn one from it?

Germanic_Neopaganism#History, Germanic_Neopaganism#Terminology, Germanic_Neopaganism#Distribution_of_adherents, and Germanic_Neopaganism#Factions, if viewed as a set, seem to contain enough information together that would enable the beginning of a daughter article for History of Germanic Neopaganism. What do you think, Dieter?

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerals

Yeah, I am aware how some editors, including some Indians, thought it was all about Hindu nationalism, and voted for Arabic numerals for that reason. In any case, HAN got over 60% (the requirement was 40%), but they still went ahead with the change. I'm tired of this for now. deeptrivia (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Common names is an important guideline, but I believe HAN conforms with it. Please see Talk:Arabic_numerals/naming. I agree it is unfortunate both ways (some "oppose" people thinking that "support" people are anti-Hindu, and some "support" people suspecting "oppose" people of being Hindu nationalists.) Both kind of views should best be left out of such a voting. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dab, there's this POV fork article Numerals invented by Hindus, that I've marked for deletion. deeptrivia (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dab, should we name the article Hindu-Arabic numerals (glyphs) then? I have put some links on the article's talk page, (like this) showing that the term "Hindu-Arabic numerals" is reserved uniquely for the modern European numerals. It is also interesting that this mathematics lexicon doesn't even have an entry for "Arabic numerals", but a redirect to HAN. (see this: [2]. ) Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, dab, it would probably be difficult to find a line saying exactly "Hindu-Arabic numerals do not include Arabic-Indic numerals", especially because to most people "numerals" clearly means "glyphs" (note how both are plural), and not numeral system, and once it is stated that Hindu-Arabic numerals means "0".."9", it is implied that they don't mean any other glyphs. However I found some references ([3],[4] that come close to implying this. The first reference states that while transliterating from Indic scripts to the Latin script, any pre-existing Latin punctuation or Hindu-Arabic numerals will remain unchanged, while numerals in any Indic script will also be converted into Hindu-Arabic numerals (in written Indian language, use of both HAN and local numerals is common.) The second reference says that Arabic numerals are also known as HAN, and in the same breath continues saying that these should not be confused with the Arabic "language" numerals. Note that the term "Arabic-Indic" is quite recent (invented by Unicode.)

There is no dearth of references saying "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and "Arabic numerals" are synonyms, implying one-to-one correspondence. Math lexicons do talk about notations and symbols, apart from abstract concepts. I would add that it would be extremely rare to find a reference where someone (by mistake) refers to the "Arabic-Indic" numerals or any of the other numerals that are used with the Hindu-Arabic numeral system as "Hindu-Arabic numerals". I've read a few books about the evolution of these numerals, and from the general overall language of these books, I am quite confident about the exclusion of other numerals from the term "Hindu-Arabic numerals." So if at all you think you can trust me on something, this is one of them :). I think now that even the administrator who concluded the voting by changing to "Arabic numerals" reverted it back to "Hindu-Arabic numerals", it makes sense to respect the results of the earlier process (WP:RM) that involved many more people (although I agree some of them voted for wrong reasons on either side.) Otherwise, all the issues that were discussed in detail earlier (ambiguity, accuracy, academic standards, etc) will remain unresolved. Cheers :) deeptrivia (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dab! I'll try to address more of your concerns when I have a bit more time at hand. Right now, I just wanted to say that "Arabic-Indic numerals", a term invented by unicode a couple of years ago, is most widely called "Eastern Arabic numerals." You won't find this term used outside the context of UTF-8 encoding (e.g., scholars, historians, etc will never use it.) My guess why unicode came up with this name is that support for these numerals was packaged with the generic Indic scripts solution. So, although "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and "Arabic-Indic numerals" look like identical terms, I don't think the term "Arabic-Indic numerals" should be used to denote Eastern Arabic numerals in this article, which is not about character encoding. (Of course, we can mention that in UTF-8, these are labelled as "Arabic-Indic.") Unicode also has an "Eastern Arabic-Indic", which has minor variation in symbols for 4 and 6, but these are not considered separate numerals. You might be aware of variants of Devanagari symbols for 5,8 and 9, which are all very common (e.g., compare the symbols for 5 and 8 here with the symbols on the article.) We should be careful, because, since unicode is a very "internet" thing, the net will be overwhelmingly full of "unicode" terminology, making us believe that it is a universal norm. Unicode has their own technical reasons for picking up names, and, understandably, I don't think they bother much about scholarly standards. deeptrivia (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very important matter for your consideration.

click here.

WikiProject Hinduism

Hi Dab, I seen that many of your contributions to Wikipedia have been Hinduism-related. You may consider joining the Hinduism WikiProject. Help is always needed and joining is always welcomed! D a Gizza ^Chat 11:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the word "guru"

Could you please have a look at the etymology of the word guru. This is a dispute that now lasts more than one year. Related to this, what is a good Sanskrit dictionary, preferrably online? (You can write me back in German if you like).Andries 11:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution was amazingly well informed. Thanks. Andries 15:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Alphabet

Hi Dieter, I've noticed you've been doing a lot of edits on the Hebrew letter articles. You may be interested in what I've been doing with them here; this is a proposed format for the letter articles, and I've written first drafts. Your comments are welcome. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 13:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i like the table. I also really like what you've put on the letter pages; it really fleshes out my "origins" section; there wasn't really anything there before. However, it just occurred to me that the articles that i've written on my page all focus on the Hebrew letter; the pronunciation is the Hebrew pronunciation, variations all are in the hebrew alphabet, and the significance is all hebrew. The Aleph article (or my version, at least) doesn't "essentially treat the Phoenician letter, plus its various descendants"; it treats the Hebrew letter Aleph. I still think the page moves are a good idea; but someone will have to add a variations in arabic section, different pronuniations sections (i don't know the arabic pronunciations); another thought - what will the Aleph article be? A redirect? Anyway, just some thoughts; i'll start working on it... СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We can still re-create articles about individual Hebrew letters (sort of like the Arabic-only Alif article) once enough Hebrew-only material accumulates." - isn't that what i'm trying to do with my project? Well, i tried to start this Phoenician thing with Aleph ('Alp) - look at what i did with Aleph and see what you think. I guess we'd move it to 'Alp, right? СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Aleph (Hebrew), Aleph, and Alif, and love it. The three articles work perfectly; great idea! Let's do it! СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer

Tell me, you must know, how do you deal with Nixer? He’s been edit warring on Comparative military ranks of World War II for days now adding some whoey about Stalin ranking higher than OF-10. He fails to mention what that mysterious rank is, since OF-10 is the highest rank that exists. What did you do? Izehar 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hi, do you think you could attend to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Nixer. Thanks. Izehar 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

He's been blocked for violating the 3RR, now I can look forward to 24 hours of peace. Izehar 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dab, you'll be pleased to know that Nixer has been blocked for another week [5] for persistent 3RR violations on Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Basque language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's odd isn't it - he had been reported, so he proceeded to violate the rule on other articles as well. Anyway, as you've been involved with him in the past and expressed an interest in it at WP:AN3, I just thought you should know. This time I won't be protesting like I did when I complained about you blocking him for 48 hours - I've learnt my lesson. I'm looking forward to my week of bliss. Izehar 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on my rfarb

I'm not asking yout change your vote, I'm just curious why you thought I think we should reform vandals at every cost?--Tznkai 23:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the moral support certainly, and that means more to me than any actual vote. Personally, I'd like trolls to be dealt with at a much lower level than ArbCom if at all possible. At any rate, vote your consience, and thanks for taking the time to think it through

oh yeah. No idea, its up to Jimbo.--Tznkai 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick info

Hi dab, just a quick info from you if you may... Does Wiki have any "formal" channel to flag up a "troll"? I mean, does it always take a kind of an RfC, or there is some kind of "troll patrol" who could "observe" a marked user (from outside, may be) for awhile, or something like that... Just curious, because a couple of things are becoming a pain at the wrong end now, I think (and this is a shared opinion, I'd wager). --ΜιĿːtalk 07:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inputs, dab. Let me set a brief context of where I am coming from. I am referring to a particular kind of hate wave that a user or a group may posses. The definition of a "troll" that I got from the dictionary qualifies such users as "trolls", and while they use Internet as the medium for their conducts, its an "Internet troll" (do correct me if this is wrong). Now, a set of users (whose background check clearly and publicly shows a specific hate or bias) have taken on the task of changing wiki content wrt certain historical context - which unfortunately is not limited to a given article or media. My query of "observance" was to prompt someone with authority and neutrality to witness the rampage first-hand. --ΜιĿːtalk 10:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Hi dab, after reading Talk:Proto-Indo-European language, I felt I had to give you this. It's a shame there isn't a "I'm unusually patient with trolls" award. Izehar 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wanted to present this one to dab since long ago, but you anticipated me. Congrats!--Ghirla | talk 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to speed up the Arbitration process, you can propose findings of fact and remedies yourself for the ArbCom to consider. User:Fred Bauder used to be an arbitrator (I hope he will be after these elections as well - he's the one who does all the work), and he told me here that any user can do it. I could help you if you like. Most cases are the same anyway: WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV etc. Izehar 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I agree with Izehar with you getting an award for your tireless work with regard to insistence on the necessity of scholarly references. He gave me an award too. I did respond to your comments in the RFC. I hope you respect my constructive criticism. I again apologize when I wasn't open minded about other meanings of Vishnu when they weren't the conventional norm.

Best regards, Raj2004 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like "third" this award :) You've been doing a great job of separating established facts from public imagination and urban legends. deeptrivia (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course...!--ΜιĿːtalk 09:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, thanks for the compliments. I do think you made good contributions and are an invaluable editor. Thanks for listening to my concerns. But I thought it was unfair of people bashing you without complimenting you on the great work you have done.

I think many people bash you because you are not Hindu and assume that you are wrong all the time. That is wrong as I can attest to my encounters with other wikipedians. Many "Hindu" wikipedians are quite ignorant about their religion. I was born in the US and I think my knowledge of Hinduism far surpasses many in India. The otherall theme in Hinduism leans towards Smarta Hinduism, which is a form of inclusive monotheism, where different forms of God are held to be equivalent. Other faiths in Hinduism, such as Vaishnavism are panentheistic exclusive monotheism; see monotheism for definitions. It took me years to truly understand Hinduism. Hinduism is complex religion. As for great Western scholars in Hinduism, John Woodroffe, is an excellent scholar of Shaktism and is well respected by Indians as well. so it's wrong that people bash you because they think Westerners are ignorant about Hinduism. That as in John woodroffe's case, it's not the case.

Regards, Raj2004 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, we have to insist on sources as this is an encylopedia. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051212/ts_alt_afp/usinternetitwikipedia_051212192227 Not too long ago, a person faked a bio on wikipedia! Until you, I and many others, many of the Hinduism articles were in bad shape. Raj2004 11:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Linguistic meanings are also important for the context of the article.

Regards, Raj2004 11:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you know..

Hi Dab, have a question on Symbolism. If you could help identify a symbol for me? --ΜιĿːtalk 09:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, If you could tell me what does this mean to you...--ΜιĿːtalk 10:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I feel that I just saw a *grin* on the face :-) Well, was just playing around with this graphics editor and the idea struck. Hope you liked it. Now, do I have the permission to add to your user page please? --ΜιĿːtalk 11:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get it?! Oops... feeling *shame-faced* and *embarrassed* ΜιĿːtalk 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Europeans vs. Proto-Indo-Europeans

Grüezi Herr Bachmann

Vermutlich habe ich einen Widerspruch in der „disambiguation page“ Indo-Europeans gefunden. Laut Ihren Aussagen steht Indo-Europeans unter anderem auch für Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Dies verwirrt in der Tat, findet man doch auf den meisten Wikipedias, inklusive der deutschen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Indogermanen#Besser_.22Indoeurop.C3.A4er.22_verwenden.21) gegenteilige Aussagen. Anhand diesen bezeichnet „proto-“ etwas Ursprüngliches sowie „davor Liegendes“, folglich also eine (nicht belegte) Vorstufe. Somit kann Indo-Europeans also keinesfalls ein Synonym zu Proto-Indo-Europeans darstellen.

Insofern sind an Ihrer Aussage „The term is used to apply to the Proto-Indo-Europeans …“ ernsthaft Zweifel angebracht. mfg --lorn10 12:31, 11. Jan 2006 (CEST)

Once upon a time

Hey dab, does that translate into Sanskrit simply as "पुराकाले" (purakalé)? That's what I added in the article, but I wanted to confirm with you. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just remember it from some stories I might have read in middle school, that used to start with something like "आसीत् पुराकाले कस्मिन्श्चित् नगरे एकः नृपः" or something like that. deeptrivia (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rune stone problem

Sorry dab, about rune stone, I only saw that the list layout was broken, I missed that something was added too, and mistook it for a simple mistake that added whitspace... The Dynna stone is a good article. Nixdorf 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Vikramāditya

Dab, could you spare a moment to have a look at the image set on this article (by anon) recently? The description (well detailed) is in German (I couldn't recognize if the image has anything to do with the topic). --ΜιĿːtalk 10:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know... It was in a pretty bad shape. Now at least it is readable to analyse the improvements. Not sure who removed the unsourced notice though. Thanks for looking into it. I don't have any authoritative sources at hand to contribute to the topic at the moment (the story goes back some 2000 yrs - what we hear today is mostly legends or myths). --ΜιĿːtalk 10:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource

Hi. I have seen your question at Template talk:Wikisource. In case you haven't found a solution already: it seems that a link like wikisource:de:Nürnberger_Handschrift_GNM_3227a works even if the URL that is shown in the browser status bar is incorrect (probably works via an HTTP redirection). I have tested it at Manuscript 3227a. Of course, if you prefer linking via the "External link" section, feel free to revert. - Liberatore(T) 14:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of writing

Nice work! I just wanted to let you know that I added it to the list of Did you know? topics. Feel free to choose a more interesting fact but I think the article deserves to be there. gren グレン ^? 15:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of book titles

I realize that you may need want to get involved in another intense debate, after all the troll-related problems you have had recently, but could you please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Polish Biographical Dictionary. Elonka (talk · contribs) is going around suggesting moves of non-English publications to her own homemade translations. (See also Talk:Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon.) She has already moved Polski słownik biograficzny twice to an English title, despite reverts (not by me), and it is now stuck there. I would suggest moving it back to its real title and then opening the issue on WP:RM, even though this is really a policy issue and should not be decided on a case-by-case basis. u p p l a n d 11:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Lombard Kings

You wrote that Cleph was the son of Alboin. The Cleph article says so, the Alboin article does not. Can you tell me, is this from the Origo Gentis Langobardorum? Because I have secondary sources which specifically say that they are not related (I haven't checked Paul the Deacon yet). Srnec 19:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend of yours?

Hi, dab, any friend of yours come to mind? Of course it's an established user editing as Anonymous Coward. Sweet that we were both honored by Antifinnugor on our RFC's, wasn't it? I trust you saw mine, I'm very proud of it — much better illustrated than yours! Bishonen | talk 04:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article history of writing, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Image copyright problem with Image:Family Ouagadougou.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Family Ouagadougou.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. --cohesion★talk 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins in Rama article

Dab, I changed the header, "origins" in the Rama article to etymology. I think etymology is a better term; see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/etymology What do you think? Webster's dictionary defines etymology as "the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language."

Thanks for providing the meanings of Rama from Monier-Williams. I added an Adi Sankara viewpoint.

Thanks.

Raj2004 02:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]