User talk:Dbachmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page has been semi-protected from editing

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

Contents

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Weird:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

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

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Indigenous Aryans.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

An article that you worked on

Canton of Oberland

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Canton of Oberland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Zazzer 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speed of light article dispute

Hi,

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

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

Linkspam through images

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

The plot thickens with Himalayan Academy Publications (talk • contribs), who has created the San Marga page, and linked to it from Saiva Siddhanta. The idea here clearly is to use Wikipedia to publicize this "instant karma" outfit in Hawaii: how do Lemurian scrolls grab you?:-) Perhaps an AfD for the San Marga page (on grounds of unencyclopedic content and non-notability of subject) would be in order? rudra 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to overhear your conversation, but I also have noticed this flurry of promotional activity. I just removed the link to the San Marga page from the Saiva Siddhanta because it does look to me that this is part of a systematic spam campaign of some sort. The pictures have been showing up on some pages I keep on my watch list, which is how I first noticed this. I do think that the people doing it are probably sincere, however, and so this seems a bit different from the usual crass spamlink. Perhaps they just do not know about the spam guidelines, and some friendly outreach may be in order before lowering the boom. Buddhipriya 03:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
of course. They are offering their images as it were, and it is up to a case-by-case evaluation if they contribute to the each article. I don't think the images are very enclopedic, but they may have some uses as illustrations in some cases. Nothing terrible is happening. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hypothetical Indo-European subfamilies

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

it is an isogloss, yes, but from the very beginning it was recognized as not phylogenetic, so that the isogloss has really nothing to do with "hypothetical subfamilies". You could extend the template to include various isoglosses, I suppose, but as it is, the link is really not at home in the template. dab (𒁳) 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. My original point was that it was an isogloss that seperated the subfamilies in question, but you have a point about it not actually fitting in with the subfamilies. OK, we'll keep it out of the template. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Germanic Pagans

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

Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection

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

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

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

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

P.S. There's a book scheduled to come out sometime this year, The Shaolin Monastery by Meir Shahar.[2] Some of the material in the book has already been published as articles in peer-reviewed academic journals,[3] and once it comes out, it will be the only truly scholarly and comprehensive treatment of the subject.

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

Freedom skies has used your merge tag on "Bodhidharma..." to accuse me of "ethrocentric [sic] Chinese bias".[4]
Could I trouble you to clarify the situation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence?
JFD 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Vielen dank. Can you believe that Freedom skies called me "ethrocentric"? That's rot furry. JFD 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You, sir, are an obvious sock of an undercover Chinese ethlocentrist! And a pathetic one at that, you cannot even spell your r's properly! dab (𒁳) 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't Bakaman told you? There's no such thing as sockpuppets. JFD 13:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
no, BakaSUPRman has kept me out of the loop again :( no such thing as sockpuppets? What then? Only the finest Astroturf, I expect? dab (𒁳) 13:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of socks, say hello to Joe Carrara. JFD 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Left a message on the discussion page of bodhidharm/martial arts. Kennethtennyson 21:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Socks of Maleabroad

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

Hinduism origin

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

in the arctics? I am sorry but this is hardly worth spending time on. Hinduism by definition originated in India. dab (𒁳) 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with dab here. The (partial) artic origin of Hinduism in my experience is limited to two people, User:Aupmanyav and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The main page should only deal with mainstream ideas. In this particular instance, both Western academics and Hindu devotees for once agree about something broadly speaking so continuing such a discussion IMO is futile. GizzaChat © 09:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

"Tilak's 'polar theory' for Aryan origins was not a bizarre quirk of a single individual but rather the culmination of an extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth ... A modern review of this 'northern cycle' of myths can be found in Bongard-Levin (1980) [ISBN 0391021931?] who argues that Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Scythian traditions (and by cultural contact also Greeks) all shared a common mythology of a northern mountainous land which, he argues, could only have been acquired in their prior common home on the Pontic-Caspian steppe."

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

request for Arbitration

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

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

Women in warfare timelines

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

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

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I wasn't expecting you to do all that, but I'm genuinely grateful that you did. I have never seen a sockpuppet smacked down with such undue haste. JFD 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting that unhealthy boost when provoked, I know :o/ dab (𒁳) 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rig Veda bibliography

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

yes, I see no problems so far -- I just didn't want to have two sections titled "Translations", listing them once is enough. Keep up the good work, dab (𒁳) 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I had not finished the changes I was making while I had the "Construction" tag on, but I see that you have chosen to work on the issue about editions versus translations before I had finished. That's fine, I will abandon work on the article pending completion of your work. I would prefer that you not remove the references that I am adding, and simply add additional variants, so we can get a variant list established. We can then smooth out any issues with variants as another step. My plan was to finish adding what I had as new material and remove duplicates, which is why I put the Construction tag on. Buddhipriya 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
don't be insulted, I was merely pointing out mistakes you were making. I didn't remove any of your references, but it appeared you didn't understand what you were doing. To begin with, an edition and a translation are two completely different things. Then, Elizarenkova published excerpts in 1972, and a full translation in portions 1989-99. There is nothing wrong with your references, but you seem to have difficulties recognizing them for what they are. No problem, it's a wiki. dab (𒁳) 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tigris

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

The problem is that Tigris (talk • contribs) is a sleeper sock with its first edits back in April 2006, while Ararat arev (talk • contribs) only became active in December 2006. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, some of these accounts actually go far as back as 2004, which gives me the impression that he is in fact hacking into these accounts somehow. This is just my theory. Khoikhoi 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
the account names are too uniform. Also, hacking accounts, and give them away in a single edit by using the same stupid edit summary? And, Ararat hacking passwords doesn't strike me as very likely, he didn't leave the impression of being the brightest bulb in the chandelier. It doesn't matter, after all, we'll just block the socks as they come in. At least this Armenian sockmaster makes the Hindutvas look less bad, who otherwise are beginning to look like the most pathetic sock-circus in the wikiverse. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your wrong Dbachmann its me Ararat arev 75.4.25.182 09:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And all of you ignorant people will finally realize our true history. This isnt about nationalism at all, these are "Ancient Records" that you had never seen in your life or heard about. Im not talking about the Akkadian one either. 75.4.25.182 09:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is the only way to prove our history Im going to do it. Yes im hacking accounts 75.4.25.182 09:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You want me to prove to you its me Dbachmann? Open the Armenia page to find out :)

I don't care who you are, dear, it really doesn't matter. As long as you were editing in good faith, you had a chance to influence articles. Now that you're vandalizing, you will just be reverted and blocked. Nobody has yet successfully influenced Wikipedia in this way, and believe me, people tried before you. The most you can aspire to is getting your entire provider blocked (but you'll need to be really good for that) dab (𒁳) 09:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

that's what I suspected, he's finding the "john" accounts for us... So much effort wasted, I wonder if he's at least using a script :) dab (𒁳) 09:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My revert

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

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

to read:

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

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

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

Re:

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

You will note that we have an entire Category:Pseudoscience, and that our pseudoscience gives a reasonable, well-referenced outline of the topic. So, no, you are wrong, sorry. There are citeable academic definitions of what qualifies as pseudoscience. The topic is also discussed on Indigenous Aryans itself, with Sokal's paper giving an in-depth analysis of the connections of political radicalism, religious fundamentalism and pseudoscientific babble in Hindu nationalism. dab (𒁳) 16:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of Hindutva pseudoscience before. I don't disagree that some people are using false claims. But I want to draw your attention to the fact that history is not science. It uses many scientific methodologies but it is at the end, speculation, unlike palaeontology, for example. Hindutva pseudoscience as a term does not exist and should not be coined on Wikipedia. Please stop pushing for your point of view as if it is academic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scheibenzahl (talk • contribs).
maybe if you would read the article, you would note that Alan Sokal discusses Hindutva fringe literature in an essay entitled Pseudoscience and Postmodernism. This article is supposed to be about the pseudoscientific claims concerning the universal validity of the Vedas, while the Indigenous Aryans one is supposed to be about the pseudohistorical or pseudoarchaeological claims concering the "Aryan race" and fantastic age claims for the Vedic texts. I never claimed the article was finished, and you are welcome to help building it. So far, your "objections" are not very helpful, and I must say, do not appear to be made entirely in good faith. dab (𒁳) 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retaliatory tactics

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

I have identified you as a sock ten days ago, Hkelkar, I just couldn't be bothered to tag your page. It is people with characters like yours that turn wikipedia into a battleground, sadly. Your tactic against my alleged bias would be to cite academic sources to straighten it out, just like I was forced to dig for academic sources. Since you cannot do that, you indulge in trolling and sockpuppeteering. Which really reinforces my position: if there was bona fide material to hold against it, you could just do that instead. dab (𒁳) 22:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you think this way. I do not wish to edit-war or stoop to this level so I won't respond in the way that you do. Your falsely accusing me while I detail your biases is an indication that you are abusing your reputation and powers to silence your detractors. Your post does not change the issue of POV forking off of multiple articles. Birdsmight 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You had your chance to edit constructively like everyone else. I am prepared to discuss and review all of my edits in the light of sourced criticism brought up constructively by editors in good standing. You have shown that you are not capable of such, and you were banned from Wikipedia for a reason. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it also telling that when Hindutva pseudoscience used to be a redirect to Indigenous Aryans, you tried to get it deleted for being unrelated to that article. And when I begin expanding it into a full article, lo and behold, it is a pov-fork of Indigenous Aryans. So much for consistency. It is plain, of course, that all you really want is to avoid having a dedicated discussion of the Hindutva pseudo-scholarly propaganda machine. This used to be possible as long as academia couldn't be bothered to react to the fringecruft, but this has changed over the past few years, and there are now a number of studies in religious fundamentalism and politically motivated pseudo-scholarship that allow encyclopedic addressing of this unwholesome topic face-on.
For the record and anybody watching this, I would like to add that I am slightly disgusted with the whole enterprise. I find "communalism", that is, hate groups and mob violence, uninteresting and sad. And I don't have an ounce more sympathy for a Muslim or Christian mob than for a Hindu mob. But at least the militant Muslim mobs tend to be satisfied with angry chanting and some waving about of Kalashnikovs, while the militant Hindus for all in the world seem to feel compelled to back up their sectarian sentiments with insane pseudo-scholarly babble (nobody knows the reason for this; it is undisputable that the Vedas are older than both the Bible and the Quran, so why should the Muslims care if that age difference amounts to 1,000 years or to 10,000 gazillion fantastillion Vedic super-years??). This results in direct attacks on the integrity of Wikipedia, and this is where I became involved: I used to discuss innocent topics of Vedic philology, and only ever became involved in all this Hindutva nonsense because the articles kept getting butchered by ethnocentric fantasies. I would like everyone to understand that the more people push this nonsense, the more I will be forced to put it into perspective, even if it is not what I am interested in; you really have nothing to gain by provoking me, the only thing you'll achieve is that I'll invest more time into encyclopedic discussions of the politics involved. dab (𒁳) 09:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar socks

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

thank you Aksi, no harm done, I am beginning to enjoy the sock collecting. dab (𒁳) 11:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

About an article

Check out Hindu kingdoms in West Asia. Looks like it should be deleted. deeptrivia (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind me butting in, yes, it should be deleted. There's already a Mitanni article. And to describe Mitanni as "Hindu" is misleading. What would be accurate to say is that there were Indo-Aryan gods in their pantheon. CiteCop 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
it's patent nonsense. A speedy, if you ask me. dab (𒁳) 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's patent nonsense you're after, have a look at Kambojas and Kambodia. It's exhaustively referenced - some real effort has gone into it. Some of the references are modern and reliable, some are downright quaint, and there's even a certain Dr J.L Kamboj, a name with a comforting air. The perils of autodidacticism. PiCo 08:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your msg

Sie sind inkorrekt :) Das ist nicht party-line ballot-stuffing aber folgender WP:OS--Scheibenzahl 09:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that makes no sense whatsoever. dab (𒁳) 10:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't throw away WP:AGF so easily. Neither am I.--Scheibenzahl 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva pseudoscience AfD

I have closed the AfD as it was a redirect, not an article. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did argue it should be speedily closed, however a move is not a reason to close unless you think it should be closed anyway. {{move}} discussions can be had in good faith on articles' talkpages. There was no debate, of course, since the afd was never in good faith to begin with. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the reference on the 3RR page, but wasn't sure what it was about. Avery clever turn of a phrase, though: "At least this Armenian sockmaster makes the Hindutvas look less bad, who otherwise are beginning to look like the most pathetic sock-circus in the wikiverse." What is the story? Arcayne 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

are you inquiring after the lone Armenian sockmaster, or about the Grand Unified Hindutva Sock And Troll Circus? dab (𒁳) 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Socks

He guesses the passwords, he can't hack. Artaxiad 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he's purchasing them from the person who created them (just guessing). That would be a pathetic thing to do though.--Domitius 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure all he does is looks for obvious old accounts for example if it was Mars, the password would be Mars not sure if its right though but thats what he does I'm positive ;-) . Artaxiad 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamil, Classical Language Issues

Hi, I don't understand why you are removing a factual statement that Tamil is one of the ancient classical languages of the world. It is NOT hype. It has unique secular literature (virtually no mythology, simple verses and songs about love, philosophy (without religious, god-invoking varieties) and valour. More than 500 poets including several women have composed nearly 2000 songs belonging to 200 BCE 200CE. Of course subsequently between 500-800 CE almost 22,000 songs set to music, now on Gods Siva and Vishnu and other non-hindu epics like Cilappathikaram and other works. It is truly a unique body of literature and a language and I don't understand your objections. You say in your dictionary it is not a classical language unless it is a dead language. But why do you ignore the official declaration of the President of India and scholars like Prof. Hart. Is it fair? --Aadal 05:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(dab, beg your pardon) Secular? Yeah right. On the one hand we have Tamil scholars crying hoarse that their literature was secular(cant see to what avail) and on the other hand we have Tamil epigraphers successfully and gleefully 'deciphering' the indus script to reveal the word 'Murugan'(...and there was light!!) - a 24 carat 'Tamil'... er.. God. And then of course, we have Shiva himself(oh.. or is it Siva or did you say, seyyon) gracing the first Sangam in the ice age alongside wooly mammoths to adjudicate on the worthiness of the tamil works being peer reviewed. And then was it Agastyar(btw, was he a Tamil God or Sanskrit God?) who handed down the tamil grammar that Tolkaappiyanaar eventually gave Tamil? huh. And oh btw, for all your crying hoarse, the President of India means nothing to wikipedia. He/she can have an article about himself/herself. But thats about it. Wikipedia doesnt follow the Indian constitution. Sorry. As for Hart, refer to my comments on that 'Classical languages' talk page. Sarvagnya 06:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't delete the claim that Tamil was a "classical language". I just found the lead paragraph doesn't need to state that twice over. dab (𒁳) 07:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question.

Have a look at the contributions of these users: Special:Contributions/Shiny4, Special:Contributions/BLeslie, Special:Contributions/Nichols21. There are one or two other accounts that have basically done nothing but build up Category:Books by Koenraad Elst as well as various other books from Voice of Dharma. Most of these are strongly non-notable. Do you suggest AfDing or merging and redirecting to the main author page?

Hornplease 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the problem, and I don't think it's very grave. I don't think any ISBNd book titles should be Afd'd, I think they should be merged into their authors' article (if it exists), or into some other list article or similar dealing with their subject area. In the present case, these can all safely be merged into Elst's article. The category I would CfD, though, we can't have a "books by" category for every hack with ISBNs. There should be a Voice of Dharma article, however, and non-Elst publications can be merged there. No "Voice of Dharma" category will be necessary, it can just go into Category:Hindutva. dab (𒁳) 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
any book and every book that anyone cares to register in the book trade has an ISBN, and there are several million of them a year in english alone. not all of them even get published. It is not a sign of distinction. The minimal sign used in some contexts is that major university libraries have a copy--if almost none do, then the book is almost certainly not notable. . The is a special relevance I've noticed in checking bios of traditional Buddhist scholars--many of their books are not entered into the usual western-oriented book trade and will not have isbns, which doesnt necessarily make them unimportant. DGG 03:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, I know. It only goes to put into perspective that many pov-pushers we get do not even have an ISBN'd book to back up their thing (pre-1970s publications are of course a different issue). I am not saying every book entry should be kept, but I am saying, if somebody bothers to create an entry, make it a redirect somewhere if the book is unnotable, redirects are cheap. dab (𒁳) 05:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Studies

Further information: Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) and Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia

I still think allowing genetic studies is a bad move. Obviously, the POV-pushers are looking to cherry-pick sound bites from the "conclusions" - they are never going to report the statistical facts instead, which would be too dry and too inscrutable anyway. But, the latter is all that's really admissible, because these are statistical studies, i.e. research papers, not summaries or reviews of the current "state of the field". That makes these papers primary sources, as I tried to argue elsewhere, and all the caveats on primary sources should apply. Further, the point about time frames is crucial, especially in the light of the "conclusions" these researchers are apparently reporting: the data pertain to one time frame (at least 10 kya or greater) but the soundbites are deliberately cast in more, ahem, "relevant" terms. See the various articles in this search, in particular this one, where some unsavory motivations come to light (it's about funding, after all). rudra 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of these problems. We have, after all, a main article, Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia (which needs attention). We cannot just ignore these studies, and we should give a very brief summary of their gist, obviously noting their fundamental limitations, in Indo-Aryan migration, there is nothing wrong with that. There are always scholars pimping their findings to the tastes of the people with the funds, that's hardly a problem particular to India... dab (𒁳) 06:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
But the gist of these papers have nothing to do with IAM etc! Gene flow 10 kya or earlier is obviously irrelevant. The problem is that the papers state provocative conclusions, which are in fact not warranted by the data. Since the POV brigade wants to cite these papers only for these sound bites and not the facts, lacking a survey article to cite as a secondary source, there's no way to avoid OR if these papers are to be mentioned at all. IOW, the correct summary is "inconclusive due to insufficient resolution in time depth", but this is not (yet) a sourceable statement. An alternative would be to trawl through these papers and actually pull out the numbers and say something like "XYZ et al in their study find M, N, and O at time depths of T +/- 3000 years, and conclude..." where the juxtaposition of the actual numbers and the conclusions would expose the absurdity. But that's a lot of work, and the POV brigade won't stand for that either. I think the crux is to emphasize the primary source nature of these papers, so quoting their "conclusions" is simply not enough. rudra 07:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that it is somewhat relevant. You can never use these studies to prove either IAM or "out of India", but you could conceivably use them to disprove either. I know the pov brigade is only here for the soundbites. The gory details should be laid out in the Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia articles. If some sort of consensus regarding genetic influx over the past 10 ky should emerge, we can summarize that on the IAM article, with the appropriate caveats. If there had been no influx whatsoever, i.e. if the upper-caste population of the Punjab was 99.5% descended from mesolithic stock, IAM would be effectively disproven. If, otoh, upper-caste Punjabi population derives, say, 85% from mesolithic stock, it is anyone's guess what portion of this influx predates the Bronze Age, and what portion predates the Islamic conquests. Conversely, a consensus on Indian origin of M17 would lend significant support to "out of India". As it happens, of course, M17 origins are most likely Central Eurasian ("steppe" LGM refuge), and the high incidence of R1a in India in fact lends significant support to "IAM", without of course being conclusive, it merely fits the scenario, it cannot be taken as independent confirmation. dab (𒁳) 07:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the practical problem is that the POV brigade wants the soundbites in other articles now. Waiting for a consensus isn't solving anything, I fear. rudra 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
how is that different from the practical problem that the pov brigade is trolling every tenuously related article regardless of common sense? That's a problem of user conduct, not content. We have to enforce an informed summary (as opposed to an unstructured pile of cherrypicked soundbites), sure, but that is no reason to ignore the topic altogether. dab (𒁳) 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No way to do that without pulling out the actual numbers from those papers. Sigh. rudra 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Undeciphered writing systems

Nice job. You may want to keep an eye on it, though...if memory serves, another version of this article was deleted a while back and unceremoniously merged into List of writing systems. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

why deleted? a {{merge}} would be enough, the article is technically a list and I wouldn't object to a move to a "list of" title. dab (𒁳) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I see you mean [5]. dab (𒁳) 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, here we are! Apparently, it wasn't deleted, just redirected. You've re-redirected it to the new article, which is just as well. Anyway, a lot of articles like that and List of alphabets have been merged and/or redirected to List of writing systems. Do you think we should undo that? We may be better off having seperate pages for these lists. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not too fond of giant lists. That's what categories are for. undeciphered scripts may be essentially a list, but the non-"list of" title leaves room for some intelligent comments in prose. dab (𒁳) 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Amfipoli

Hi, I added a paragragraph in the article about the Greek city Amfipoli. Could you look at and maybe it edit? It's the last paragraph. Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amfipoli Thanks! Neptunekh 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

it's looking good; of course, we have a dedicated Amphipolis article discussing the town's history. dab (𒁳) 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

I didn't realize that violated something. What about the GFDL did a redacted email violate? The Behnam 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

well, a person writes you an email, and explicitly requires you to keep the communication private, upon which you copy-paste the entire thing to Wikipedia. [6] Appealing to copyright may be splitting hairs, but I see no reason not to just summarize it along the lines "this guy sent me an email, claiming this or that." dab (𒁳) 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my reply on AN/I. I find it rather offensive that User:The Behnam would publicly post a private e-mail I sent him, as a matter of privacy, respect, and courtesy. --Mardavich 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
that's more or less what I meant, and is the reason why I removed the full text of the email. dab (𒁳) 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, though I happen to consider the full text more indicative of tone and I don't have much of this respect for secret intimidation messages. The Behnam 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Image:WikiThanks.png Thanks for stopping the impostor. It is a bit unfortunate that other users might interpret the banner as if I made it myself, but it probably can't be helped. Thanks again. Valentinian T / C 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, there should be separate {{sock}} and {{impostor}} banners... dab (𒁳) 12:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I just note that {{impostor}} used to exist and read "This user, Impostor, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it exists solely to impersonate or attack [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]." Maybe it should be undeleted. dab (𒁳) 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoever did it, it was a bad decision. Valentinian T / C 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hindutva propaganda

Hi Dab - I'm confused over your recent creation of articles/redirects such as Hindutva and pseudoscience, Hindutva propaganda and I would like to understand your rationale. To me its clear that describing/connecting Hindutva with pseudoscience or propaganda is a judgment/opinion; the creation of articles on this basis does not conform with WP:NPOV. Separate articles like these with a set group of authors/references seem to debate and advocate POVs as a separate entity from the overall subject. An article must be balanced, leaving all judgment-calls to the readers themselves. Rama's arrow 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

nobody equates Hindutva with pseudoscience. Nevertheless, the movement has engendered fringe literature, which is the subject of the article. If you look at the talkpage, you will see that the "full" title is pseudo-scientific currents in Hindutva propaganda, and I do invite you to move it there. I don't see how this article advocates "POVs as a separate entity from the overall subject" any more than any other article in the Category:Pseudoscience category. Of course, WP:NPOV includes WP:UNDUE, in the sense of WP:FRINGE meaning that fringe literature will be identified for what it is up front. NPOV does not mean that fringe views are to be treated with equal sympathy as mainstream literature. dab (𒁳) 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply - I feel its an inherent problem when an article is nothing but a collection of opinions, quotes by rival sources. The entire Hindutva propaganda article basically summarizes what individuals/groups of scholars think - Golwalkar said this, Nanda said that, Vivekananda said this, Kak and Frawley said that and on and on for Vasudev, Rajaram, Prakashan, Witzel. More than half the entire text composes of quotes from their books, from news articles, etc. This article this comes off as a debate or an op-ed piece. Even your title "Pseudo-scientific currents in Hindutva propaganda" is like a title one would give to a research paper or article. I can't understand why this information cannot be summarized within the Hindutva article itself - that would be a more natural place for this information. A "Criticism" section can contain a para on how some historians/scholars criticize Hindutva for promoting pseudoscience. WP:NPOV is in fact a lot more than just a balancing act - this article comes off as a see-saw between different points of view - an unbalanced see-saw, as more weightage is given on what the Hindutva groups have been doing, of how the BJP's education policy links up with statements made by Vivekananda and Golwalkar 50-100 years ago. There is absolutely no problem with readers arriving at this conclusion through the facts reported, but at the moment this article actively promotes that interpretation. Rama's arrow 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
well, it isn't a criticism of Hindutva. A criticism of Hindutva is indeed sorely missing from the Hindutva article, and I would be obliged if you could contribute to it. This is an exposition of the fringe literature that is being pushed by authors with a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) ideology. I mean, you can read the article, can't you? Why do I have to tell you what it is about on my talkpage? It is about fringe claims of "Vedic Science" anticipating scientific results, and about fringe claims regarding the ancient history of India. That's the entire scope, and I am leaving an actual criticism of Hindutva to another editor. dab (𒁳) 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


This is an exposition of the fringe literature that is being pushed by authors with a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) ideology. Will I be justified in creating an article that is an exposition of fring literature by authors with an anti-Hindutva ideology? I'm sorry, but this is what an encycopedia is there for. We leave research, report, journalism and interpretations to others. I am also not convinced by your claim that this article is not a criticism of Hindutva, as that's the only clear-cut implication a reader gets. Lemme summarize what this article tells me, as a reader - Hindutva is in a large measure inspired by pseuoscience, outlandish assertions and fictitious nonsense. I'm sorry that you can't see the problems the article is carrying, but the AfD debate should shed more light on if/what the problem is and what should be done about this article. Rama's arrow 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
um, no, it is the pseudoscience that is inspired by Hindutva, not the other way round. Hindutva is obviously inspired by patriotism and religious zeal, not by pseudoscience. Yes, you are free to expose fringe literature of any sort if you can find any. "anti-Hindutva" would be Muslim? or the much quoted Marxists? Of course, you are perfectly free to research and write an article about pseudoscience inspired by Marxism, or whatever you please, as long as you can discuss it by referring to respectable peer-reviewed publications. dab (𒁳) 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I agree the "pseudoscience inspired by Hindutva" is an interesting and vital angle to be covered, but these are simply too subjective to be independently presented in the way you have done. For example, the "Vedic Science" section opens with a discussion of Vivekananda's views - are you linking him with pseudoscience? Does Hindutva come into this, given that "Hindutva" was formulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 (well after the death of the likes of Bankim Chandra, Vivekananda and Tilak) and can't be considered a blanket definition for Hindu nationalism? Does the article deal with how Vivekananda got to that conclusion? Its just a few authors talking about this. "Anti-Hindutva would be Muslim? or the much quoted Marxists? Please do not put words in my mouth. My point was that such type of articles can create a battleground quite easily, with an article like Indian nationalism becoming home to theories of why Western historians have been impugning Indian history, etc. You should know that this happens routinely, shouldn't you? Again, my point is simple - the material you want to discuss (or "expose") should be done within the Hindutva article. Rama's arrow 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
yes, per WP:SS, the Hindutva article should have a "Propaganda" section, with a {{main}} template linking to our article. Please feel free to do that. Regarding your other points, that's simply a case of improving the article in good faith. I suggest you begin with reading the Sokal article. Vivekananda's quote is classical pseudoscience, and he is in the article because the current propaganda artists take recourse to his stuff. I really don't see a problem. The article has been AfDd three times now, on no other grounds than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You know how it works: find an academic review of Sokal and Meera, and we'll add it. That will be the only way forward. Allegations that the article attacks a religious community are empty. The "Voice of Dharma" crowd decided to masquerade their ideology as scholarship, and as a result they will have to accept that their material is criticised as if it had been scholarship. If they had never pretended to voice anything but religious or devotional musings, there would be no need to discuss pseudoscience. As it happens, Wikipedia has been under attack for two years by people who push these fantasies as if it were scholarship, and it is necessary to draw a line per WP:FRINGE. I wouldn't dream of ridiculing religious piety, but claiming the ancient rishis harnessed nuclear power in 7000 BC etc. for me falls rather outside the category of mere piety. dab (𒁳) 10:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Help

I have some questions and concerns I would like to ask you about via Wikimail, but couldn't find a link for that. Coould you provide a netaddress for to ask these questions privately? Arcayne 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

please use the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox. dab (𒁳) 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can I ask where it says you are expected to wait for at least two months before re-nominating an article for AfD? Xarr 15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

this isn't policy, just established practice as far as I am aware. The topic keeps coming up in cases like Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or Criticism of Islam. You may want to look through the archives yourself, or ask for opinions on WP:VP/P. It is more important that a reason why the article is renominated is put forward than to wait a specified number of days. dab (𒁳) 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought this may be the case, I have seen this argument a few times on AfD noms and it just didn't wash particularly well with myself. Thanks for the clarification. Xarr 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi dab. I have already asked you to assume good faith. You have reverted me without giving me any reason, while I edited the article and provided an entry on Talk page. Please discuss it there and please do not revert.--Scheibenzahl 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to assume good faith on your part. Please show a pattern of constructive edits and suggestions that makes this possible without violating common sense. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/b/a/User_talk%7EDbachmann_4b96.html"