User talk:Dbachmann/archiveD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Harald Naegeli

Hey dab, how about some fun? (Instead of all this dead-serious linguist's business with all the constant crank and troll fighting :-) You wouldn't have any good sources on him, would you? How about helping me to extend this article? Lupo 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For instance, a free image of Undine would be great. Lupo 11:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arvanitic again

Hi Dieter, could you have a quick look at Talk:Arvanitic language once more, and at User:LukasPietsch/Arvanitic? Don't worry, it's not currently under POV-pushing fire, rather the contrary: I worked out a compromise proposal, and suddenly all the warriors have gone hiding and can't even be bothered to comment. Eerie silence. Right now, all we need is another endorsement of the proposal (or competent suggestions for further changes, obviously) so that we can get the page unprotected. Personally, I have reasons to believe that several of the old disputants will not resume fighting. Lukas (T.|@) 12:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your remarks about India

I have resonded to your comments on my talk page --BostonMA 13:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Dbachmann, about Template:Timeline of the Migrations Period, I'm trying to port it to the portuguese wikipedia, but I fail to understand why there the text font is not the same as here. It seems EasyTimeLine has a bug which may be prevented using a monospace font. The one used at your timeline is as such, but not on pt:. Do you know how to fix this? Here is an example (bottom). Please type back, Nuno Tavares 20:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arch

After your efficient tackling of India-related issues, I would like to ask you to look into this edit: some anon keeps claiming that the arch was invented by Indians. Also, knowing you attitude towards pseudoscientific claims, you may be interested to check Itigilov. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 20:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phaistos Disc

I have requested unprotection. Kadmos 08:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sock puppets on Rajput are back

I have done some language improvement on the top section of the page, as well as remove some cross referenced pages added to the article (why put another article into an article? a link would do?) I have removed a section re the contentious Muslim conversion and rajputs saving hinduism issue also.

Without a doubt you have most likely become sick of this page I am sure (lol) but there appears to be some quite dedicated sock puppets returning on the Rajputs page. Is there anything that can be done about this?

Otherwise, hope you are in the best of health and no doubt enjoying respite from this article :) --Raja 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category talk:Alphabets

Hi dab, maybe you'd like to check out a problem on Category talk:Alphabets? Alexander 007 15:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rune deletions

Glad to see they did not de-admin you, what a silly thing to propose. Anyways, no need to feel guilty. The copyvio issue is a big concern, so I speedily deleted them to avoid ANY issues. I am not sure why I started the project to document every single rune inscription by Rundata into a more regionalized, easy to read system. I have worked on this off wikipedia for a while and figured I'd share. The end result will hopefully involve maps of the districts with pointers to each stone. Uppland is going to be big map.. Regardless of all that, I value your opinion since you are an experienced Wikipedian, but more importantly, quite the educated mind on a lot of topics. So; Is adding lists of the rune inscriptions for each district worth it? It appears the Rundata folks have gone offline as the download page is no longer working, and without the translations I am concerned it is not note-worthy. Mceder 04:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ge'ez Letters and Phoenician alphabet

I realize that SA and Ge'ez scripts don't descend from Phoenician and come from the earlier Proto-Sinaitic or Middle Bronze Age scripts, but the articles that I added Ge'ez letters to don't say that they're for alphabets descended from Phoenician. They just say they're for the letter X in the Semitic alphabets (which include Ge'ez and SA). If the article is simply for Phoenician letters and its descendants, then I agree with you, but I just don't think that is (the case (or if it is, it isn't shown or implied in the article). Even then, showing the evolution of certain letters in all the semitic abjads might be more informative. Yom 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Should there then be a "Proto-Sinaitic Alphabet" or "Middle Bronze Age Alphabet" template to put in the specific semitic letter articles, then? Certainly the article on the letter "shin" isn't limited to the letter "shin" only when it has descended from the Phoenician alphabet.
Yom 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grapheus

80* is a crank; Faucounau may well be. The only reason I have for thinking them distinct is that 80* does not seem to understand Faucounau's theories any better than anyone else's. Faucounau does know what Ionic is, and he is reasonably careful about differentiating

  • inherited η, from IE ē and ee, which he represents in transcribing the signs as e
  • and transformed η, from IE ā. which he represents by ae.

Also 80* cannot explain Faucounau's epigraphic arguments on the direction, whereas he does, at length. I see no reason to try to understand and summarize them myself. I think the loyal English-speaking niece is plausible. Septentrionalis 20:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My Greek grammar restricted itself to Attic, without confusing the student with dialect. Faucounau's solution doesn't convince me, any mote than it convinced Faure, but there is always a chance that a time-traveller would confirm it; and you're right about the alternate Faucounau seeing proto-Phoenicans everywhere.
I don't see the use of Homer as all that silly, compared to the rest of it. If you're going to do this sort of acrophonic guesswork, I recall Authenreith's Homeric lexicon as being larger and more useful than the scraps we have of Mycenean. Septentrionalis 21:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
If you have access to REG, look at Faure's review. He really is remarkably careful about what he endorses IIRC: not the constellation-makers, not Hallstatt, just the Ionian-speaking seafarers of 1500 BC, who may explain some anomalies in Mycenaean. For the rest of it: Faure is silent; and yes, I agree bosh, with no proven connexion to the Ionians and less to the Disc. Septentrionalis 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You sound like you need a deep breath and a Wikibreak; but I agree: Vacuous. Septentrionalis 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Good night:

[edit] Re: IAR

Heh, the problem is, I don't posses the means to semi-protect and even if I did, I'd be too involved. Anyway, if the IP reverts again, it'll be a 3RRvio; if Rose-mary reverts two more times, it'll be a 3RRvio, so keep hoping ;-) The problem is, that he seems to have other accounts; what we do need is a WP:RCU - I think I'll make one (unless one's already been made). --Latinus 20:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'm sure if you requested semi-protection, explained the circumstances and reminded uninvolved sysops of IAR and that what we're supposed to be doing here is writing an encyclopaedia, it may work - who knows? They're more likely to grant it if you request it than I or Septentrionalis. --Latinus 20:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, if I logged out and started vandalising, would that give you a good enough excuse to semi-protect (joking?) --Latinus 20:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Look at what Raul654 had to say about it Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#User:Rose-mary vs. User:80.90.57.154. I think it's time for mass block - I think Septentrionalis has already seen to it. --Latinus 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rose-mary

You say "Shouldn't we consider Rose-mary the primary account, and 80.90 as Rose-mary editing logged out". That would be fine by me if you think it makes sense. I did it this way because 80.90 is the primary editor, and Rose-mary only shows up sporadically to support 80.90. --Macrakis 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If there were an ArbCom decision that we had to put in a single sentence on "evidence" and JF's books, what would you put and why? I don't want to revert war with you, Rose-mary is confusing enough. The Mycenaean etymologies are out of my field, but Faure seemed reasonably impressed. Septentrionalis 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ever had one of those stupid moments?

Thanks for correcting mine! violet/riga (t) 14:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work on Iranian peoples

You did a good job in editing the article. It looks much better and reads well. Tombseye 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avesta

You changed the title of the section "The Zend-Avesta error" to "Terminology". I don't get it. The title of the article is Avesta, and a section "Terminology" implies Terminology of the Avesta, something that the section is certainly not about.

/me scratches head. -- Fullstop 15:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ps: Avesta Terminology would need a whole encyclopaedia for itself. :)

the "error" title seemed to imply it was wrong to even speak of "Avesta", which would mean that the article is titled incorrectly. It is rather the case that current terminology (terms such as Avesta and Zend) was originally due to misunderstandings, but is now used as a matter of course just by convention. Before your reorganization, these things were discussed in the "History" section, which is probably where they belong (viz., History of the term). dab (ᛏ) 15:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

aah, I see what you mean - "nomenclature" (Namensgebung) rather than "terminology" (==within the Avesta). Perhaps a better title would then be "Zend-Avesta" (misnomer) or Zend-Avesta (etymological error)? -- Fullstop 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ps: have you seen my comment on Talk:Gathas

see Talk:Avesta. You are right. I appear to have dropped the Yashts completely. -- Fullstop 16:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finno-Ugric things again

Is User:Adam88 a reincarnation of User:Antifinnugor? I note that the latter's ban (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Antifinnugor#Remedies has expired a short while ago... Lupo 20:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

He did? (Break the ban, I mean) Well, in either case, if he repeats his or User:Antifinnugor's behavior, a new RfAr should be opened quickly, not just when it becomes unbearable. A sockpuppet check might also be in order then... Also note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Page_swapped_to_hide_vandalism?. Lupo 20:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Jewnyec was him, too. Got blocked pretty quickly, though. -- nyenyec ☎ 20:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Note Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups (lower-case "g")... Lupo 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Stupid me, of course you'd be aware of that one... Lupo 21:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just an advice

Was it irrational from my part to perform the following edits? [1] I mean check out that guy's personal page: User:Macedonian Is this kind of attitude allowed by wikipedia? Miskin 08:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's nothing - look at this edit and User:Macedonia's userpage :-/ --Latinus 08:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gathas

just in case you're working on Gathas:

Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: gâtha m. a song; a verse, stanza (especially one which is neither Ric, nor Saman, nor Yajus, a verse not belonging to the Vedas, but to the epic poetry of legends or Akhyanas, such as the Sunahsepa-Akhyana or the Suparn); the metrical part of a Sutra Buddh.; N. of the Arya metre; any metre not enumerated in the regular treatises on prosody (cf. Rig-gâthâ, riju-gâtha, yajya-gâthâ.)

Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary: gâtha m. song; f. {gâthâ} the same, esp. a kind of rel. verse or stanza; N. of a metre (=âryâ).

Peterson's Avestan dictionary: gâthâ f. strophic form, hymn of a certain strophic form, group of hymns of the same strophic form, but ved. gatha- 'song' (Hum); specific hymns composed by Zoroaster; last 5 days of the year.

-- Fullstop 15:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi again Dab, sorry to bother you with yet more problems (I know no other better informed). There is anew user on the Rajput page who I am convinced is a sock pupet from earlier days, 10 000 typhoons. He is vandalising the Jarral page and extending propoganda there also. I believe he is doing this because I contributed to that page rather than for the better of that actual page. How do I go about reporting him for vandalism? Thanks. --Raja 17:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shikaripura Ranganatha Rao

New article you may be interested to check. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Ionians

Edited this, and I haven't even gotten to the Pelasgian business. Have I been breaking a butterfly on a wheel? On the other hand, I did read JF; I deserve to have some fun out of it. Septentrionalis 03:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Good morning to you, dab. Hope things are nice at your end. Could see that the RfAr and other stuff are put to rest; for good, I suppose. Could you point me to something in brief about the Old Testaments please? I can't read Hebrew, but English would do. Also, any idea about the "Bibel Code theory"? Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Macedonia if you can. --Latinus 12:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the wikithanks

Hey Dab, I've commented on a few things over at Talk:Germanic neopaganism and slightly changed your lead in on the page itself - would you mind expressing your concerns and motives about the current goings on there? Glad to see you are back in the saddle. :D Thanks for your help! WeniWidiWiki 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to my repeated request for comments on Wotanism :D WeniWidiWiki 21:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dab, what is your opinion on what should be done with Wotanism? Please comment here if you have the time. At this point, I think it should be an independent article for the reasons listed at the link above. Thanks! WeniWidiWiki 17:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

What made you delete my statement on rajput talk? Do not do this in future else I will report you for vandalism. If you have a problem with what I say talk to me. =Bhannu 13:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek grammar

I just started this and thought that you could give a few pointers as you have written quite a few of these. --Latinus 13:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Macedonian language

User:Asteraki is trying to frame the article so that it reads Greek dialect throughout etc. He added back the Greek language template, added POV sentences, added back the Category that was recently removed by you, and so on. Alexander 007 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:The Ghost Who Walks

This user contacted me via email asking to be unblocked, can you explain to them why they were blocked, or tell me and I will do it. Thanks :) - cohesiont 07:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

from his only edit I took him to be an obvious sockpuppet of a recently banned user, back to "haunt" Talk:Rajput. dab (ᛏ) 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, ok, I thought it was probably something like that, but I didn't want to tell them that until I knew :) - cohesiont 08:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
They emailed me too. I am 99% sure Dieter was right to block, but I've asked the user to explain their comment on the talk page and confirm that they are not one of the banned users. There's nothing to stop them returning with another username, anyway (and being blocked again if they start pushing Hindu POV on that article). --ajn (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liar

Calling a known liar, a liar is not an attack. You delete my handwriting and I will be compelled to reciprocate. =Bhannu 13:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

Just want to be clear on a point I have broached before, tell me what you think, but IMO, the "References" list must cite works actually referred to in writing the article, not suggested extra reading. Hence the present list has an inglorious destiny in store, so why take the pain of working on it?? And if you must, you could (generally) use SS's helpful summaries to remove those books, the supposed info from which has lately been removed from that page. Although lol, if all he could find in "Annals and antiquities" was a reference to Surjan Hada, I don't know what to say, but anyway a new list will be slowly built up. Slowly. Regards, ImpuMozhi 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asatru Folk Assembly

Hey Dab, will you move the Ásatrú Folk Assembly page to the Asatru Folk Assembly page? The AFA doesn't use accentual marks. I'd do it but it won't let me, since I'm not a moderator. Thanks! :bloodofox: 22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it will - I just did it. :) WeniWidiWiki 00:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Woops. Well, thanks! :D :bloodofox: 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles whose titles are initialed a lowercase letter rename

How would you feel about "Article titles with lowercase initial letters"? I'm trying to avoid dropping the object of the clause. -Harmil 13:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidekick?

It is only natural that contributors exchanging views, often experience problems of communicating the register and the tone of their communications - especially on anonymous sites where anyone around the world can contribute (and that is great). So it is best to ask questions. My question to you is, what did you mean by stating: "User Politis [...] His anonymous sidekick switches to German for some random insults". What do you mean by 'his anonymous sidekick' and who is beiing 'insulting'? I think that is a fair question. Perhaps you can also translate the German so that I can understand it... Merci. Politis 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neolithic religion

Hi there dab. As one who seems rather well-versed in the particulars of PIE and historical linguistics research (I am not), if you've the time would you be able to take a look at the above-mentioned article, and the ensuing discussion on its talk page. IMO it's a load of old monkeys, but am willing to hear any more knowledgeable comments on the topic. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks dab, those changes are a considerable improvement. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 14:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Adam88 and User:Adam78

Hi, I wonder a bit why you mentioned Adam78 (talk · contribs) along with Adam88 (talk · contribs) and his socks in your post at WP:AN/I. It sounds as if you wanted to imply he's his sock too. My impression was he's clearly someone else, and was actually opposed to AFU? Lukas (T.|@) 09:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XMK

Did you read my comments in XMK-talk (just above "Attic" headline)? Can you please help me with a response? NikoSilver 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Just to thank you for all the revertion of abuse -- I'd give you cookies 'n icecream, except that you seem to be so word-philic and pic-averse. I wager both those accounts are SS -- how to get rid of him?? One bad apple is painting his whole community black. Regards, ImpuMozhi 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the help

Thanks for your work on the description of Muhammad. Sorry I've been of so little help on Rajput. Busy busy. Learning about mtDNA, PIE, and the homeland of the "Aryans". Witzel thinks the Indo-Iranian homeland was the central plateau of Afghanistan, which I find convincing. I've been arguing with Iranian nationalists, who are convinced that I'm an Arab just pretending to be a honkie. I may also be a Jew. I think I'll start a list on my user page of all the things I've been called. Zora 10:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Witzel article available online at [2]. Yes, home of both Iranians and Indo-Aryans. High cold land, summer-winter mountain transhumance, tribes flowing out of plateau along river valleys, through passes (just look at map ... ). Also reading Bryant on AIT, will read Mallory, have read various articles on Harappan "script". Loved the idea that the symbols were more like highway signs than a syllabary. Suggestion that Harappans were multi-lingual and that this may explain why symbols were preferable to actual writing. Possible start of Indian tendency to encapsulate rather than convert?
The Iranians are just as scary as the Hindutva folk. If they get the bomb too, that's an axis of potential insanity right across central Asia. Zora 10:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] J. R. R. Tolkien

Hello, my name is Mike and I put this article up for Featured article status, and all it really needs is some in line citations, but I do not have the books referenced in my possession, and I was wondering if you could help me with this, as you seem to have heavily contributed to the development of this article and it would be simple if you knew which books the citations came from. Thanks so much!! Judgesurreal777 17:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say thanks, dab, for your dogged hard work on this article. Let's keep at it! - UrbaneLegend 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paliki, Homer's Ithaca

If you can spare a moment, could you comment on Paliki, Homer's Ithaca and the related articles? I think your perspective would be valuable there. The set of articles was started by someone who is very enthusiastic about the new book Odysseus Unbound, and I think the articles are excessively POV towards this theory. Akhilleus 23:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


The article is not about Paliki geography: it is about the new archeological discoveries of Homeric sites, on Paliki, which correspond to descriptions of Odysseus' home there, in the Odyssey. The geographical templates point to those sites.
The article is not a book review, either. The Bittlestone/Diggle/Underhill study, announced by their book, establishes the current leading hypothesis about the location of Homer's "Ithaca", as described in the Odyssey: the article is about the philology and geology and archaeology which are going into that ongoing study -- none of which is covered by, or belongs in, the other articles you mention.
So please reverse your edits: read the discussion/talk, and its archive, and contribute there. If we can agree on some changes, then let's by all means make them; but you've moved the article & done your edits here without discussing with anyone, which to me seems pretty un-democratic and against Wikipedia policies.
--Kessler 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


dab: re. points you've made today --

> 09:34, 13 March 2006 Dbachmann "what is this even about?" + the geographical article on Paliki should obviously be seperate from all this Homeric stuff, whatever the merits of the latter. What are the geographical templates doing on this article? dab (ᛏ) 09:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about Paliki geography, it is about the Paliki "Homeric stuff", as you put it: the new archaeological discoveries on Paliki... The geographical templates point to the locations of those -- that is what the historical controversies in this case have been about, those locations.

> 09:54, 13 March 2006 Dbachmann m (moved Talk:Paliki, Homer's Ithaca to Talk:Odysseus Unbound: move to book title) ok, this article was in serious need of focus. It is about a specific hypothesis, "Paliki = Ulysses' Ithaca", as put forward in the Odysseus Unbound book. I removed all offtopic stuff that properly belongs on Trojan War, Homeric scholarship or Odyssey, as well as the more misguided categorization, and moved the article to the book title. Paliki should of course be the article about the peninsula itself, and now links to this article. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What right do you have to move this article, rename it, and edit it to change its focus entirely, particularly without discussing this with any of the rest of us who have been discussing it? Is it your status as "administrator"? I'd like to know more about that, if so: seems to me this is an arbitrary and high-handed procedure, then -- what & where are the rules validating you and allowing you to do this? I am questioning how democratic Wikipedia really is, here.

And no, the "stuff" you removed is not off-topic: the article is not about "the Trojan War" or "Homeric scholarship" or the "Odyssey" -- it is about new archaeological discoveries on Paliki which combine all of those topics plus philology and geology and transmission of texts and several more. You are mistaken.


And on my User talk site you just said:

> I am sorry Kessler, but you may need to spend some time on Wikipedia to get an idea how it is organized.

So educate me, dab: tell me where to go on Wikipedia to learn more... But the approach you've taken so far, on this, is just high-handed and arrogant and I believe ignorant: you don't appear to understand this subject, or to have the patience to instruct others where and when you believe we're wrong -- you just slash & burn, and make patronizing comments. That's no way to recruit and develop good people, if Wikipedia has any interest in doing so.


> Most of the categories in your article were simply wrong. Most of the material I removed was completely offtopic.

The article is about archaeology, as I've also said to you today on your own Talk page: the two basic sciences involved at Paliki, so far, have been philology and geology -- transmission of texts is a third field of study, also involved, for which the article included a brief explanation and cites -- current Wikipedia articles on these and other Paliki-related subjects either don't exist or are too general to cover the specific application to Paliki of the discoveries made there.

That is the point of Wikipedia "categories", isn't it? To link similar/related topics which nevertheless have to be given separate treatment? That is the point of any link. This is not an article about philology, or geology, or "The Trojan War" -- this is about the discoveries at Paliki, which does involve all of those but only as links.


> Either generical information relating to Homer or Odysseus, or almost surreal things like the Manesse codex (14th century), the Gutenberg bible (15th century), an image of an Estonian rock formation,...

These were images, originally included by me to illustrate the article's text, then deleted after discussion with others in the Talk section...

I still think I was right to include them: as I said in the discussion, which you appear not to have read, I don't understand how Wikimedia Commons ever is going to work if Wikipedia won't allow the use of its images -- and to me and to most, I believe, an image is something which can have non-literal uses -- so an image of an "Estonian rock formation" may be used to symbolize "geology", and an image of a Gutenberg bible may be used to symbolize "printed text", and an image of a (any) manuscript codex may be used to symbolize "manuscript text", which is how I'd used them -- images very often are used in this manner. By your Wikipedia definition of the use of images, it appears to me, the only use of an image taken from "the Manesse codex (14th century)" which you would permit would be for an article entitled, exactly, "The Manesse codex (14th century)" -- that's ridiculously limited, and not the way images are used.

But, procedurally, I did defer to the Wikipedia Discussion for the article and deleted the worst-offending images, myself, per this literalist interpretation of their use, when it was urged there by others. That's democracy, as I understand it, for better or for worse...

What you just have done is not, though: no discussion, no participation, no regard for other people's points of view, just a high-handed edit. That is anti-democratic.


> I'm sorry, but it almost looked like the article was a hoax.

Don't be sorry, and it wasn't. It was a very serious piece, intended to describe a very significant historical and scientific and cultural discovery. It took a very long time to compile and compose and discuss and edit and re-edit and discuss again, here on Wikipedia. A great deal of thought by a number of people went into it. You responded to one critic, without participating in any of the discussion yourself: every theory has its critics -- Darwin has his critics, Newton even has his critics, even Galileo still has his critics... And Bittleston/Diggle/Underhill have theirs: in their case I'd say, myself, that you have backed the wrong horse, in listening to the sole critic here to whom you chose to listen -- Underhill is a very well-regarded geologist, and Diggle is a leading classical philologist with an international reputation. Not a hoax, dab, neither them nor the article.


> We have Homer's Ithaca where you can discuss generic arguments relating to the identification of Homer's Ithaca.

That is not the purpose of the "Homer's Ithaca" article, which I set up. There are a great many historical ideas, theories, notions, fantasies, about the location of Ithaca: ranging from Eratosthenes, to every tourist-business-minded village in Ionia, to plenty of nuts who have woven possibilities out of thin air -- you will see references in that article now to Greenland, Culloden Moor in Scotland, the Gog Magog hills of Cambridgeshire...

The point of that article is to provide a framework for discussion of all of those precursor theories -- the scientists and the nuts among them -- there are many, and they are fascinating, but that is a subject in itself and has no room for the detailed explanation of the current leading hypothesis in the field, represented by Bittlestone/Diggle/Underhill now.

The latter certainly deserves its own article: plenty are in composition for other journals and reference works as we speak, and Wikipedia needs its own -- my hope, too, is that others will write Wikipedia articles on some of the more interesting older theories as well, such as Dörpfeld's work on Lefkas, or the several folks who have worked on Ithaki island -- that's all valid archaeology, correct or not in its conclusions, and of great historical significance for several scientific fields. Like Schliemann's work on Troy, or the work of Evans on Knossos...

But Paliki needs its own article: to present Bittlestone/Diggle/Underhill, yes -- just as one on Troy excavations would present Schliemann -- but also any discussion of the new idea, including discussion by its critics, and references to previous and competing ideas on the subject, which the Paliki article includes in its Resources and links, and which it can fold into its text as the academic discussion develops.


> Your new article seems to be entirely about the book, Odysseus Unbound. Anything beyond that topic may either be discussed on Homer's Ithaca or on Paliki.

No, it isn't, and no it can't: there is nowhere near enough room to include all of the necessary and interesting detail of the Paliki discoveries in a comprehensive article on "Homer's Ithaca" -- the latter article already is reaching a large size simply with its listing of the most major historical theories on the location, so adding "Paliki" detail to that not only would unbalance it but would make it too big.

The "Homer's Ithaca" article is an index: urged by the suggestion of Bittlestone/Diggle/Underhill critics that "other options" be considered. We have a religious fundamentalism controversy surging at the moment, here in the US, which also urges that "Creationism" be taught on an equal basis with "Evolution" in our school science classes... but, no matter, several of the "other options" for the location of Homer's Ithaca are in fact interesting, even if they are not scientifically credible, so they are listed at "Homer's Ithaca", and hopefully some of them will be expanded in their own articles and so linked there.

A geographic "Paliki" article, which I understand to be your second suggestion, is not suited to the "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" topic, either. Wikipedia already contains an assortment of such geographic articles for the Ionian region: Kefalonia, Lefkas, Ithaca -- the last an entirely different island, Ithaki, calling itself "Homer's Ithaca" in spite of obvious errors in the claim which have been known for centuries -- and "Paliki" in fact is not an island, although it once was, but now a peninsula of Kefalonia... So the geographic things are complicated, here: complications avoided, and clarified, by establishing a separate article for "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca".

The other "geographic" island articles, anyway, are devoted to chamber-of-commerce and touristic-style description: "local sports teams", "forestry & fishing", "radio & television", local government structure -- the "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" is not about any of that, not even about its history -- Homer and the Odyssey and the discovery of archaeology substantiating it are Western civilization and several of its sciences, like Schliemann and Troy.

The "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article addresses, specifically and in some detail, a major archeological discovery and the debate about it. The methodology pursued by the specialists involved -- Diggle's philology, Underhill's geology, and the discussion of that by their critics -- is its central theme. I see no other place on Wikipedia for this: not in any of the articles which you or the one critic who reported this to you have suggested -- if this is a turf war of some sort I really feel Wikipedia's purposes will be better served by being broad-minded than narrow. The Paliki issue in academia certainly is going that way: the articles and papers and conferences, in classics and transmission of texts and paleography and many other fields, all certainly are going "broad" rather than "narrow", on this -- it will be a loss to Wikipedia if it just slots it into some tourist article or calls it a book review. The Bittlestone/Diggle/Underhill view is important, yes, but other views on Paliki -- including the views of sceptics and critics -- do need to be added, now and as they develop.

Restoration of the article to its original title is what I'd plead for, here. Discussion of the article's structure and expansion and the direction of that to me seems best conducted in the Talk section there.


> Please don't try to write a belletristic master piece of popular science there but stick to the topic of the article. dab (ᛏ) 16:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss in "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" Talk and make changes, then... I don't think my writing is "belletristic master piece of popular science", and I believe I "stick to the topic of the article"; but if others disagree I still am very willing to listen and to learn -- and to change, and to see others make changes. But discussion is the key, I believe: give some reasons, make some alternative suggestions -- to me that's democracy, and what you just have done here is not.

--Kessler 19:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

dab, thanks for weighing in. Akhilleus 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] malakos

Hi, I was apalled to see that your edits to the pederasty articles were reverted as "vandalism" and I'll drop a note to Corax Clayboy to that effect. However, I am not sure what the concept has to do with pederasty per se, to my mind it is more relevant to Greek androphile homosexuality. Haiduc 23:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative names

Tell me something, please. What is your opinion on this edit. While it is accurate and Ethnologue does say that "Macedonian Slavic" is an alternative name for this language etc, it has been very controversial and has been subject to an edit war involving many users. Needless to say I was reverted within minutes on the grounds of non-notability. In my opinion, the alternative name should stay, especially considering the fact that the Republic of Macedonia's first president Kiro Gligorov had referred to it that way and that if I were an average reader (most of them don't care about the naming dispute) I would like to know as many native names for the language as possible. On the French Wikipedia, I was accused of having "political motives" in adding it. Tell me, to the best of your judgement, am I unknowingly POVing articles? --Latinus 00:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sangerism

Hello Mr. B. I saw your views on Sangerism and at the risk of attracting unfavorable attention from the great, I thought I would share some insights with you. I finally found out who Larry Sanger is.

This issue is an example of a wider social one, is it not? To wit, democracy versus aristocracy. So, Aristotle's "degenerate" forms might be applied. True, democracy can slip into anarchy. But, aristocracy can become oligarchy. Not all those who claim to be aristocrats are so. Who are the true knights? As a scarecrow I profer the image of papa doc, medical man and torturer. Is he the best? He had some expertise.

Moreover, the nature of expertise is very narrow. The expert is like an idiot-savant. If you are on his topic he can be wonderful. Off it, he falls flat. Does not the encyclopedia of the human race call for renaissance men, men who are interested in everything but admit they have limitations and are willing to keep an open mind and deal with the great unwashed as fellow citizens? I go to the doctor like everyone else but sometimes the doctor is plain wrong. We had the doctors all through the middle ages and now we know most of what they thought can be shown to be baloney by almost any ordinary man. The doctor is part of life no doubt. Many who have trusted their lives to experts aren't here to offer us second thoughts. The experts are only a resource to be considered.

We already have universities full of experts. They crush the ordinary man, they stifle free speech and the free play of opinion. They have a guild and what is more the guild controls the intellectual press. Nobody can think anything unless they say so. They are a social net excluding all but the approved kind of fish. I am minded of Copernicus who did not dare to publish his work except near death, and the first copy was placed in his dying hands. A free Wikipedia is the exemplum of free speech. I'm sure Larry has good intentions but the road to you know where is paved with them. Who made him the master of all philosophy, able to sit on all men's thought like a regulatory valve? I just don't think a PhD does that, do you?

A last word in this already too long oration. Compare Wikipedia to a heat engine. Before you can use energy you must release it. Wikipedia and devices like it change the social entropy. Suddenly society releases a large amount of communication. The encyclopedic engine takes some of it for useful articles. The rest goes off in anarchic discussion and foolish quibbling. But, unless you relase it, you can't get any to use! So, the faults Larry decries are actually necessary to obtain the good part. The good and the bad go hand in hand, as you always have heard, but here too. Pleasure depends on the knowledge of pain. I must be bored before I can know the sublime.

Wiglaf is right. Too bad he decided to drop out, but that was his decision. On the one hand some articles need work and are amateurish. On the other some are pretty expert. I'd go to Wikipedia first with a simple click before I would drive in town and try to find a place to park so I could get a few hours in Boston University Library, or sit around waiting for books to be fetched from Boston Public Library, or apply for permission to use three books for a few hours at Harvard University Library. Moreover, whatever I write is going to get an instant critique from thousands of people. And Wikipedia is easily brought up to date. I don't have to fork out 1500 to get an encyclopedia update every year or few years.

Well, Bachman, I have been watching the views of Sanger and seeing the biting sarcasm come out in article after article and I do not think Larry's "expertise" (judging from his articles) is worth stifling democracy for. I'll listen to the amateurs. They have perceptions and understandings worth listening to. If I see a student paper for sale at a yard sale, boy do I pick it up quick! Now there, I say, is a fresh and untrampled mind. You don't have to reply. This is more in the way of some public opinion for you. Just archive it after reading it.Dave 04:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

reply to reply. I think we are less in disagreement than not. I do not disagree the country of Wikipedia needs self defense. No doubt the highest ranking are not the least capable of defending it. The danger of course is the police state, where the defenders defend the defence rather than the country. I see that not happening here so the point is academic. Also the goal is not to serve individuals as individuals but to serve a society of individuals by producing an excellent encyclopedia. By all means the reward of excellence by peer recognition is a powerful motive. I don't see the owner doing this for profit. I've been impressed by his words. I feel bad when I see somebody good get disgusted and quit. Don't they care for our education any more? This is in the category of free public education.
I understand that the encyclopedia is private property. However, the owner has thrown it open to the public for whatever reasons and has a mechanism for choosing officers that is open to everyone. That makes it democratic. If I own a large estate I can put a town with a town meeting on it if I want. Where the contention lies is in "The difficult thing is, of course, to figure out who is right and who is wrong". More difficult still is to figure out who is to figure out who is right or wrong. How do we know when the sages are benevolent? There's a paradox there. You can't both throw it open and not throw it open. That's all I'm saying. Elitism is throwing it open without doing so. The elite are in the position of saying "my opinion is that your opinion is only opinion." Well, I swan. Nobody is fooled by that one.
But, I'm not a rebel against excellence. I appreciate what you do. I don't mind being corrected. Vandals frost me too and Wikipedia shouldn't be for advertising, propaganda and yet more national or ethnic bluster. That isn't excellence. You know what? I'm beginning to rue I said anything. Great work. We don't need Coriolanus, we need Appius Claudius. Feel applauded. Carry on.Dave 04:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Archaeological Periods structure proposal

I have mocked up a start for an overall "Periods" article in tabular and index form in Talk:List of archaeological periods/temp. Please have a look and see if this provides a better structure to fit in the variety that is Regional Archeaological periods. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 11:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict at Adana

Sorry for the accidental edit conflict. I was just going to propose a small "compromise" re-structuring. Feel free to change back to Macrakis/your version if you prefer it. Thanks for looking after the article. Lukas (T.|@) 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, that compromise of mine wasn't a good idea, it seems it triggered some new nonsense additions by those guys. Could you have another look? Lukas (T.|@) 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajput

Dieter, saw your appeal on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents just now concerning User:10 000 thundering typhoons. I've also noticed User:Stephanian's involvement and note some other usernames, User:RendezvousSingh and User:Chudasama. Do I take it that the arbitration case has not dampened the Rajputs' ardor?

Perhaps some sock checks would sort these chaps out, though I understand that they're a clan so they could well be editing separately.

I'm going to take a fairly close look at their editing and possibly block one or two of them for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nestor's Cup

Hi, thanks for making your additions to Nestor's Cup. Just one thought: Maybe we ought to be more careful about sourcing the image and about its copyright. Since it actually contains not only a photographic reproduction of the object, but a reconstruction of one of the proposed readings (the "ἔρροι" one), it probably would be copyrighted, wouldn't it?

[edit] Persian people

Could you perhaps leave a comment here? The problem is more widespread than just this sentence, but this a good place to start. I just edited the article to reflect some of my concerns. It's not perfect, but even this imperfect improvement is likely to be reverted, so you might want to keep an eye on it. Let me know if you have any questions. AucamanTalk 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graeco-Armenian

Fantastic article! Nice job. You really need to keep an eye on this as I believe both some Greeks and Armenians will be pushing their POV as both peoples are quite "proud" of the uniqueness of their languages and generally are "afraid" of any scientific research that links the respected language with any other. I have scanned pages from J.P. Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans that deals with Graeco-Armenian. How can I e-mail them to you? Gray and Atkinson as well as Gamkrelidze and Ivanov also support this theory.--Eupator 15:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some important data here with references: http://www.geocities.com/valentyn_ua/AO22b.doc
There is also this book: The Linguistic Relationship Between Armenian and Greek by James Clackson (1994)
In Mallory's book these pages are relevant: Pages 33-34 and Pages 273-4.
http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/psych/research/Evolution/Gray&Atkinson2003.pdf
Gray and Atkinson seem to believe that Greek and Armenian diverged much earlier.

--Eupator 15:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be mentioned that an outdated school of linguists regarded Illyrian and Thraco-Phrygian to form a family with Greek. Thus the Greco-Phrygian-Armenian connection becomes more justified. Miskin 15:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I read about the existence of such a theory in a Britannica article, I think the one on the Illyrian language. I'll look it up and quote it for you. However it doesn't provide details, it just mentions that such a hypothesis did in fact exist and is now regarded outdated. Miskin 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you express your position in having contributors act on your behalf - unless they are experts. I am very sure you can do your own bidinig (re:Graeco-Armenian) Danke. Politis 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're referring to me, I did what was best for the article, independently. I've had it on watch since shortly after dab started it. Alexander 007 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
obviously. Politis' edits were para-vandalic (if that's a term). He has done that on the XMK article before. You would expect him to embrace the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis, since that's really the only way to get XMK to be closer to Greek than to Slavic in a remotely mainstream way. But some people edit only by kneejerk reactions triggered by various national adjectives, it appears. dab (ᛏ) 18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"Para-vandalic", I like that. Is that derived directly from Proto-Vandalic, or from Common Gotho-Gepidovandalic? Frója armés! :-) Lukas (T.|@) 18:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I love your style Dbachmann. Really I do. You use such big words... But please, open your eyes, such forums are striclty discourse based; therefore, how do you go about discerning a contributor's preferences (Greek, Slavic and all that jazz)? And, of course, a pen name is no indication to the person (l'habit ne fait pas le moine). But if you are what you claim, I prefer a thousand times the anger and reverts of fellow Balkan contributors, than the assumed superiority and prejudices of people who once massacred them and who, today, think they are neutral. We are just talking, right? Efharisto, merci, danke, blagodaria and blagodaram. Politis 18:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
ah, the good old times when looting and marauding swiss mercenaries were the terror of Anatolia..... in what parallel universe, precisely? I don't know what sort of forum you believe you are on here, but I am talking about a linguistic topic, which may be 'discourse-based', but hopefully the discourse in question is among linguists. It is, furthermore, a discourse concerning the Early Bronze Age, and if you have an idea what your various ancestors were doing at the time, I don't, beyond assuming that they were eating their porridge and whetting their bronze, or flint, as the case may be, implements. You also seem to imply that every contributor from the Balkans will automatically share your mindset. Now that is quite an assumption. I wouldn't put it beyond the Balkanese mind entirely to hold an academic discourse, but we're just talking, after all, so why make sense. dab (ᛏ) 18:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks

Please take a look at Talk:Greeks. I'm afraid the essentialist concept of ethnic identity is very stubborn.... Your thoughts and contributions would be welcome. --Macrakis 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Dab, thank you for standing up for me when I was personally attacked. I appreciate it. When I first came to Wiki I was all excited about sharing what I know and have learned through the years, but at times it seems like I am banging my head on a wall dealing with people who just want to argue for the sake of arguing and huge egos. I am a Rajput, but I am willing to hear a valid arguement if presented to me in an academic manner and politely. Again thank you. The worst accussation was that I was the leader of the Hindus only group (rolling my eyes), if we follow IP addresses, can't we tell who is who and which IPs are the vandals. Anyways, I will be more active in two weeks, but then again I might just take a vacation in Domincan Rep instead. Sincerely, Gorkhali Gorkhali 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5th state

you've asked if i were questioning about 5th state, i wonder where you read that. it's true, tho. i am.

i'll keep the conversation where you started it, in my talk page, if that's ok. ;)

btw, you were confusing state of matter with phase of matter. and i'm confused about that as well. ;P

--caue 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's cool talking to ya. Keep it comming! --caue 05:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha, 25 minutes reply, getting better... :P Maybe we should think about google talking or something. --caue 09:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

4 minutes. Heh, ok, i won't be bothering you for too long now... going offline soon. But I just opened gtalk just in case. --caue 09:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurd stub

Have you seen?

--Mais oui! 06:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: css

Hmm, good point. You'd think if my old DVD player is able to play new movies, those new movies would still have to use the same CSS algorithm. Heh, well I guess I can't answer your question then; I was only trying to be helpful and relied on something I might have read somewhere else. :) -- Daverocks (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burushaski language

Hey, you might want to check out Talk:Burushaski language and Burushaski language. At least one linguist (Ilija Casule) thinks the language may be connected with the Paleo-Balkan languages and/or the Aegean languages. Alexander 007 03:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mir of Hunza---more here. Wild claims that some ancient Macedonians were forced to flee Macedonia ca 1500 BC into Anatolia, later pushing into Pakistan, becoming the Burusho, who speak Burushaski. Well... perhaps ancient inhabitants of Macedonia (not ethnic ancient Macedonians), but to claim ancient Macedonians per se sounds like open & shut pseudo-science. Alexander 007 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mantra

Hi. You wrote:

The Sanskrit word mantra- (m. मन्त्रः, also n. मन्त्रं) consists of the root man- "to think" (also in manas "mind") and the suffix -tra meaning, tool, hence a literal translation would be "instrument of thought".

I was curious as to why you put a hyphen after 'mantra'. Also, what are your sources? According to the Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, the neuter form is rare. Perhaps that should be noted. Also, I know little about Sanskrit, but I noticed that मन्त्र gets many more hits on Google than मन्त्रः or मन्त्रं. The Sanksrit Heritage Dictionary also lists मन्त्र. Why is this? Regards, Dforest 12:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Of a different kind -- you may want to revert your edits on Rajputs and invasions of India back to "Sandeep cts". The info you moved from Rajput is available elsewhere on various bio-pages or is already erased POV. Alternately, the page can be put up for AfD on these grounds. Which do you prefer? Regards, ImpuMozhi 17:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Please just revert yourself one time on Rajputs and invasions of India page immediately. Regards, ImpuMozhi 18:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, idea was that I would then work on the article "as I found it". But anyway. ImpuMozhi 18:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic grammar

Hi, I understand that you are of the heavy contributors to that article and I'd like to ask your opinion on something. In my opinion, the verb section is rather poor, considering that there are many (regular) ways of stem modification and only one is mentioned, there are no examples of weak verbs etc. Currently, we only have an example of a sound verb's stem modifiction, but there are also quadriliteral verbs, doubled verbs and the varieties based on the location of the letters waw and ya' within the root. While I think including examples of all of them may be unnecessary (and would certainly require a separate article), I do think that quadriliteral verbs (verbs with four letter roots), doubled verbs (verbs with the same consonant as the second and third radical) are worth mentioning and it wouldn't take up that much space. What do you think (I just don't want to be told after I've written it all that it won't be needed)? --Latinus 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the Arabic text, it took me half an hour to prepare :p BTW in the prefixes and suffixes table, I did not use italics and the template - do you think it's necessary, because I'm not sure how that would fit in with the highlighting, considering that we're not showing words, but only the prefixes and suffixes. I'll have to remove the Arabic text as well... --Latinus 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Concerned

I talked with my service provider today to find out if someone has hacked my computer since I am not very knowledgable about firewalls and IP addresses etc. Considering I live near a huge Indo-Pakistani community (about 15 min drive from my place) I wouldn't be surprised if it were in my vicinity. Gorkhali 20:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In case you're curious

I've calculated that it would likely save 2 man hours every time a mass blanking vandal comes along as it basically stops everything and reverts within 10s - it was up to 30 reverts a min during one of the attacks. As for RFA'ing a bot, while block abilities might be useful for the bot (and its owner for that matter) I'm not sure if the community is willing to give a bot block functionality yet. -- Tawker 07:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 v3.0 will be the next major overhaul and I think thats where we'll introduce the "what if block" list - originally I intended it to block mass vandalbot vandals but your suggestions make some sense, I'll have a look into them :) -- Tawker 08:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajput page

Hi dab, just thought Id bring to your attention a new 'vandal' who has removed my post on this discussion where I asked/requested both Bhola and ImpuMozhi to work together in good faith. This was removed obviously by one of our fresh banee's (as it were) and I'ev since reprinted it.... I have messaged both ImpuMozhi and Bhola to try and work together if possible as both are in good faith I believe and have much to offer.--Raja 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Hey, thanks for your support. I would like to inform you of my action plan/goals:

  • 1) By end of tomorrow, I am going to get the Hinduism article to 60kb. For doing this, I am using the revert closest to the original FA article as a template along with the other religion pages. It is proving to be easier than I originally thought as closer look shows a lot of repeats.
  • 2) Then over the next few days, I plan on going thorugh every "dodgy" reference and make sure it is upto the wikipedia standard. If not, I will remove it and replace it with a valid reference. Luckily, I have great access to lot of related scholarly articles + lot of time. Also, I am hoping others to pitch in ofcourse.
  • 3) I also have a long term goal based on your suggestion to round up some permanent editors for the article. Their jobs will be to make sure stuff does not creep in + a long term goal of further improving the references.

Wish me luck :) bye.--Blacksun 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)