User talk:Dbachmann
|
|
archive1: 19:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 18:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / archive2: – 04:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) / archive3: – 08:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) / archive4: – 09:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) / archive5: – 2:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) / archive6: – 09:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
A Gaelic word: Ciobair
I haven't studied Celtic languages other than occasionally, so I need help finding info on this Gaelic word ciobair, meaning 'shepherd'. There is also a Gaelic word ciob meaning 'mountain-grass' which might be related. What I'm wondering is if a word such as ciobair is common in Celtic; if it has an etymology. Hope you can help. This word is intriguing, because similar forms are found in various languages. Decius 16:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Note: there is plenty of time, so if later you find some info on this, I'd be interested and I'd appreciate it. Decius 16:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'll check it out! dab (ᛏ) 17:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Advice
Hi Dab, you have dealt with some strange contributors before, and I wonder whether you have some advice about how to deal with User:Haabet. Previously, he has only written about Tightlacing, but now he is on some strange kind of crusade against the Suiones. I don't know whether he is insane or a vandal, because he makes up very odd theories without apparently reading his sources. If you check Talk:List of dubious Danish kings, you'll see what I mean. I am not asking you to interfere, I know you have other things to do, only to give me some advice.--Wiglaf 13:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Dab, for your advice and for helping me watch the page :).--Wiglaf 19:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- I was wrong about User:Haabet. He is a Troll and now you appear to be one of his targets. Look at this page that he is "expanding": Dani (tribe). He wants to mix the Danes with the Suiss.--Wiglaf 09:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
IRC?
Hey, dab, I don't suppose you're ever on #wikipedia? I haven't seen you there, but it would be great to have a real-time word some day. No, no, I'm not trying to make work for you! (I'm lying. I am trying to, but not very much or very soon.) Bishonen | talk 19:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Right, I absolutely don't want to mess up your twelve-step program—IRC is almost too much fun, I agree—I will e-mail. I was only avoiding it because I got an impression once before that your spam filter had gotten the upper hand of you, and because the whole wiki e-mail feature seems unreliable anyway. But no doubt most messages reach their destination. If you don't see a message from me by tomorrow night, perhaps you could let me know?--Bishonen | talk 20:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Islam bashing
What we were discussing, among other things, was whether it was fair, on the talk page, to identify editors (and their sock puppets) who have an impossible-to-ignore anti-Islamic bias and an agenda for implementing that bias structurally on WP.
Remember, you were objecting to my saying that the initial rant on apostasy was put in place by someone who didn't "like" Islam. I still think it is clear enough when this phenomenon takes place, but I understand that not everyone sees it as I do. I'll certainly look at every edit objectively. BrandonYusufToropov 12:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
RfC and Swedish language PR
I am very greatful for your input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung, Tuomas. I think you're quite right that most of the debacle could've been avoided had I been a bit more patient and I hope that J, R & T will see this as a way to turn a new leaf. I will try my best to be more patient with their objections as well as being more thorough in motivating any future content disputes that might arise.
I've filed a request for peer review of Swedish language, and I am convinced that your comments would be most helpful.
Peter Isotalo 22:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Haabet
Please, Dab. Would you like to respond to Haabet on the Suiones talkpage. I think I'd better not respond at the moment.--Wiglaf 10:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Dab. I see that you're just as upset with him as I am. Thanks again :).--Wiglaf 12:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Greeks and Hellenes
You recently re-created the "Hellenes" page with content from the "Greeks" page, though it's already been discussed and agreed among editors that "Greeks" is the right place to put this. I am not sure why. "Hellene" is a near-synonym of "Greek", and it doesn't seem sensible to have the same content in two places. What I have done, though, is add back your additional remarks about Hellenes into the Greeks article. --Macrakis 14:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- You say: " 'Greeks' tends to refer to the modern population, while 'Hellenes' is a rather polyvalent term, referring to ancient peoples." That's not my perception of the situation. "Greek" seems to be the common term in all contexts (check the Classics section of a bookstore, for example); "Hellene" is a more grandiloquent term, which some Greeks prefer in English because it is the usual form in Greek -- and because they think that the word "Greek" is not of Greek origin. --Macrakis 19:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
My preciousssss!
Grammatical gender? Hmmm. Oooohh. Thanks for your new comment at the RFC, dab, and shucks for your compliment. ;-) You call the awardss sssilly? Ooohhh, nooo, my precccioussss awardssss, time to polish them again. My precioussssss! --Bishonen | talk 18:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Indo-European languages
Hi Dab. I am watching Indo-European languages, and I will intervene when I see anything happening.--Wiglaf 16:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Sanskrit and Yoga
Hello Dab! I've seen you've deleted my few lines about Sanskrit and Yoga. About the alphabet... is it correct to say sanskrit devanagari alphabet? About the petals... in the Chakra article there is a link to Petal (chakra) where the thing is already mentioned; in this last article I have added some references. If you agree I would add in the sanskrit page my lines as written before and the links to Chakra and Petal (chakra). Let me know! ByeBye Java
Germany
Hallo. I've seen your post on the Talk:Germany page. Right now the discussion has stalled over there, because User:Gidonb (the person who has protected his edits) refuses to discuss his point with me. It all began a week ago, when Gidonb started to claim that the Germany page - which I've been editing for weeks! - was "extremely biased". His implicit suggestion was that I was to blame for the "extreme bias", because I have been very active on that page all along. Within a couple of hours he changed the whole article - he deleted half the page, removed every image that stood in his way, and changed the order of the sections (he made Culture a subsection of Population, Religion a sub-subsection of Culture, and other nonsense). Then he protected his edits. Here is the link to the version which Gidonb claimed to be "extremely biased": pre-Gidonb version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&oldid=13403771). You can read it through yourself. Perhaps you could also tell me what exactly was "extremely biased" about it, because I don't know. I have now spent one week on the talk page, and I've not seen one single effort by Gidonb to engage in a constructive discussion with me over his allegations regarding the "extreme bias", and about all the deletions that he has made. On Saturday, I told him that I would give him time until Tuesday (tomorrow) to make his point. Up to now he has refused to do so. I need help. I demand that the article be unprotected if Gidonb continues to refuse a discussion with me. I also intend to put back into place all the parts of the article and the images that Gidonb has deleted without good reason. I have even threatened to start arbitration against him for wilfull vandalism, regarding his indiscriminate deletions and other nonsense. But that didn't impress him, obviously. Perhaps you could tell me what I should do. - Heimdal 15:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for unprotecting. I think you did the right thing. Yes, I do have reason to believe that the administrator who protected the Germany page abused of his adminship (I have the evidence to prove it!), and I'm indeed considering to take action against him. Viele Grüße nach der schönen Stadt Zürich! - Heimdal 17:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Gidonb just reverted me on the Germany page, despite the fact that he has not cared to discuss his issues with me on the talk page. Please could you revert back to my last edit and protect the page again? Many thanks. - Heimdal 17:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I have protected the page again. I see little evidence of discussion by either side, and I see no need to allow a revert-war to continue. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Mackensen, I have tried to discuss with Gidonb for all the past week, but Gidonb refused to discuss with me. Anyway. I'd like to inform Dbachmann that I will start arbitration against User:Gidonb tomorrow for wilfully vandalising the Germany page. I have evidence enough to prove that Gidonb never deserved protection by anyone. - Heimdal 18:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I regard myself as uninvolved, yes. I believe I made a slight rewrite to the history section (mainly word order) a few months back, but that's all. As for unprotecting the page, the emphasis is not on me as the protecting administrator but on Heimdal and Gidonb as the principal antagonists. Judging from the lack of cooperation on the talk page, it could be a while. With luck, a forthcoming arbcom case may clear the waters. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
My concern was to force a cooling-off period and make the parties engage on the talk page. It isn't clear to me if anyone is particularly in the right, and I refuse to take sides in the matter at this time. That said, feel free to unprotect in a day or two if the situation truly appears improved. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Abiding by The Wrong Version, which has always struck me as a sound policy, I didn't favor one or the other. I protected it as I found it (making sure I wasn't protecting simple vandalism, of course). Mackensen (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello Dbachman, since Heimdal continues his threats to revert all our work at the Germany page, I do not see how your lifting of the protection is going to help. Rather, I think this undermines the ongoing efforts to find a solution to the continuous issues with Germany page. Also, I was hurt by your latest remarks about me on Mackensen's talk page. gidonb 10:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Braigetori
Aha, I see you're getting a real head start on the Great 2006 April Fool's Hoax War that we're all looking forward to so much. Has Filiocht been informed? --Bishonen | talk 16:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Stress
Hi Dab, and thanks for your comment on the Swedish talkpage. Don't worry about giving me stress, it's Dan Koehl. He's back, just when I was intending to fix Vikings, which still is a mess after his last intervention.--Wiglaf 19:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Vedas and Scripture
Ok, Dab I may concede partially. ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scripture) Vedas however, may be the oldest traditions. ( see definition of traditions in dictionary.com) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=traditions) Traditions are defined as a body of unwritten religious precepts and hence include oral traditions. Where is your evidence that the Vedas were written in the Middle Ages? They may have been written down much earlier, like 500 BC? or even earlier, such as 1500 BC? So you may not have evidence that the Vedas are not the oldest scripture. What would be a more neutral point of view is to say, that the Vedas are considered by many to be the world's oldest scripture and is accepted as revealed text by all Hindus. Or you can put in this: Nevertheless, the Vedas are considered to be the oldest religious traditions by many.
Hinduism may be a collection of basically two religions, Shaivism and Vaishnavism. Shaktism is really a sub-category of Shaivism and Smartism is a relatively later development. Raj2004 10:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Dab, I think with religious texts, no one can be sure when they are written. One may be able to argue that the Vedas were written 1000 BC. There may no proof of 300 BC either that's why I think using the word, "traditions" may be a compromise. Also how can you be certain that there was no script if Panini wrote a Sanskrit grammer rules book in 500 BC?
Raj2004 23:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Yes, Dab that's why I think using the term, "traditions" would be a compromise. Raj2004 09:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
"Total BS"
Well, maybe it was a bit harsh. But it was considerably toned down from what I was screaming at the radio when I first heard the story on BBC World. --Angr/comhrá 12:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- The Welsh-Hindi thing was on BBC? I thought wikinerds was just some website — the author asked nicely if he could include my maps, so I was flattered, and amenable to adding the link :) dab (ᛏ) 12:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
It was on BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4328733.stm) I wrote an angry letter about it using the phrase "shoddy journalism" to the LINGUIST list afterwards. --Angr/comhrá 12:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Miskin
No! Unfair dropping him off with us. You take him back! :)
Check out the Wiki Classical Dictionary (http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Main_Page) sometime. The editors there—I'm one—explicitly forbid these topics, and generally enforce scholarly norms. Lectiodifficilior 17:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's not copyleft. Generally, I got the sense scholars wanted some control over their words, and in particular I did it to get Pothos.org and Livius.org to put some of their content up. (The prohibition against Wikipedia content is both to protect the license and to avoid importing junk.) For starter content, we used Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and other works (see sidebar in the WCD), but we've grown beyond that, however, and now all the new articles are original. We'd rather have 340 decent, new articles than more that were just copies or were bad. Lectiodifficilior 18:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Invitation to Inquiry
dab, you are cordially invited to join Inquiry. Adraeus 12:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 13:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Difficult to work with?
Why do you find me so remarkably difficult to work with? Sam Spade 21:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Emasculated
In selecting a word to describe the current state of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Inquiry I considered enervated and enfeebled; flaccid, flabby and feeble; lax, limp, powerless, and puny.
In the end I settled on emasculated because I thought it describes best the result of one editor forcing his will on a group to the exclusion of all others. Of course I enjoyed writing it; despite that the visual that it comes with always leaves me with a chill. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
RfC re Zivinbudas
I have started an RfC against Zivinbudas for his behavior on Indo-European languages. Please feel free to comment! --Angr/comhrá 22:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
How about making Wikipedia:Request for shortening?
I found user:mav's arguments to limit the article size convincing, though 32k is very short, and I want to make a new Wikipedia:maintenance article i.e. Wikipedia:Request for shortening Care to help? I want to put talk:United States there. I know that I will make myself unpopular with that action but if such an importants article is allowed to be a precedent then what can we tell other enthusiastic editors who make complaints about double standards? I also posted this at mav's talk page. Andries 07:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Commons
Hi Those imeges are paintings or sculptures from arqueological, historical or mytical issues. Are you meaning I have to put the information about who token the pictures or place, autor, epoc... ? That discussion is a pretty hot at pt:wp :) - at least about fair use images. As soon as i can I'll correct the information. Neither on pt I'm working latelly :( See Ya Jic 20:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Wiki Article on the word Allah
This article is very misleading giving the impression that the name Allah is not a personal and proper name of God in the Arabic Language mereless to say in Islam.
Please see the discussion section of this article, and please see Pharos discussion page also where I have addressed the errors in that Article (Oxy2Hydro 22:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC))
Moving the provinces of Sweden
I quite recently stumbled upon the articles on historical Swedish provinces, landskap, created by Mic, who now seems to have left Wikipedia for good. The problem with the article titles is that Mic misunderstood the naming policies and associated the old Latin with English for some reason and used these instead of the Swedish names. He did this consistently with all articles despite people disputing his choices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swedish provinces with very good argumentation and references. The Swedish names are by far the most common when Googled for (and a lot of the Latin-name hits are our own mirrored articles), used in major English-language encyclopedias (at least in EB) as well as in Swedish-English dictionaries and hence adheres perfectly to our naming conventions. Mic has shown no references of any kind and is, as previously mentioned, not here to defend his choices.
I don't want to just move the content to the Swedish redirects and leave the editing history in the Latin-named redirects, but I don't really feel that a vote is really necessary since Mic seems to have done this without consensus, references or even plain common sense. The support that Mic's choices have received seems limited to that of Ruhrjung, who's support is humorously spurious at best.
Do you think you could help out by deleting the Swedish redirects, so the articles can be moved there or do you think a (quite complicated) move request would be necessary?
Peter Isotalo 14:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Adminship
Thanks for your nomination, Dab! I'll e-mail you when I am less tired :).--Wiglaf 19:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The Indoeuropeans
You should probably take a look at new contribution Origin of Indoeuropeans. I don't know whether it needs redirecting, deletion or what. Tupsharru 14:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I decided to unilaterally redirect it... but also check Graphic-analytical method. I think it's just something the author's invented and prime VfD material, but a second opinion would be good. - Mustafaa 17:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've put it on VfD, if you want to weigh in... Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Graphic-analytical method. - Mustafaa 17:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Meaning of Vishnu
Dab, it's absurd to say that the meaning of Vishnu is not the all pervading one and simply the meaning given by one guru. The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. You call my comments simply wrong without citing anything. You are the one who is simply wrong for not even knowing what the meaning of Vishnu is for Hindus. You are not a Hindu so you don't know. I am trying to be civil but you started name calling. There people who write nonsense in wikipedia without citing support. In fact, you had no business removing the name for Vishnu meaning all pervading. You have the gall to to ignore your own "unclean hands." We had similar discussion about Rudram. Entymology, or the historical development of the word may or may not be known but the meaning is settled. You simply didn't read the link I sent you.
For the etymology of the name, "Vishnu" please see the meanings in this site which explains meaning of Vishnu, the second name in the Vishnu sahasranama. It quotes Vedic and Puranic verses. http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/ Please click on page 01 in the Links to slokams.
Read the whole link. Many great scholars, such as Sankara have explained what Vishnu means and the conclusion is all pervading. The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. Sankara, from the cite stated:
yasmAd vishTam idam sarvam tasya SaktyA mahAtmanah | tasmAd vishNuriti khyAto veSer dhAtoh praveSanAt || (Vishnu Purana 3.1.45) "Because the whole world has been pervaded by the energy of the great Self, He is named vishNu, from the root viS - to enter or pervade." vyApte me rodasI pArtha kAntiscApadhikA sthitA | kramaNaccApyaham pArtha! VishNuriti abhisamgj~nita: || (Mahabharata. 350.43) "As I have pervaded the horizons, my glory stands foremost, and as I have measured by my steps the three worlds, O Arjuna! I am named vishNu". Quote from the scholars and summary: "To summarize,
- the nAma vishNu refers to the guNa of bhagavAn in pervading everything He has created, including all sentient and non-sentient objects from a blade of grass to brahma; - His pervasion is because of His Sakti; in other words, He is the power behind everything that exists; an instance of His Sakti is illustrated by His measuring the three worlds with His Foot; - His vyApati is indicative of the inseparable relation between Him and everything else outside Him, in the sense that nothing exists without Him. - His pervasion of everything is of the form of His enveloping and showering everything around Him with His Mercy. It is not just His sausIlya that is indicated by this nAma; all His powers including that of creation, sustenance, His Lordship, etc., are to be understood by this nAma. - It is because of His pervasion of everything in this universe that things (for example the constellations, the planets, etc.)., are in their respective positions without colliding with each other."
The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. If you want, you may write entymology may be unknown but the meaning is well-settled.
Also you cite a Western scholar. So-called Western scholars are notoriously anti-Hindu. It's fine if you disagree but you ERASED my work without reading any of the links. Ask any Hindu and Vishnu means all pervading. THat meaning is overwhelmingly the predominant one. Who cares about what an unknown scholar thinks when the overwhelming majority consider Vishnu meaning to be all pervading. (I.e., Vishnu Purana) If you cited Sankara or other giants in Hinduism, that would be authorative. As Animesh said to me once, "if you want a more concrete and old (and reverred, more perfect, more poetic) reference, then you can cite Vishnu Purana, Bhagavat Purana, etc." Why would quote Myerhoffs dictionary, an unknown reference?
Why do you care about meaning in Prakrit or common language that was corrupted from Sanskrit.. We are worried about meaning in Sanksrit.
Read the story of Narasimha which illustrates the Lord's omnipresence.
To satisfy the 1% of you who dispute the meaning of Vishnu, I put in the article, Most Hindus consider Vishnu to mean All-Pervading One but a minority attribute other meanings and even some suggest that the entymology of the name is unknown.
You may it think it' semantic to call Vishnu a Hindu god versus God but how would a Christian feel if someone call Jesus a god instead of God. The same would go with a Muslim. Judging by the conversation with (Oxy2Hydro 2) it appears that you may have offended some. Furthermore, anything that is Hindu is termed as Hindu mythology by Westerners. Anything that is Biblical is accepted as fact. No one calls storys from the Bible as Christian mythology.
Person's feelings about religion are a sensitive issue and that's what we must strive in wikipedia to tread careful waters.
Thank you.
In any point, I added your point as Sam Spade suggested , in order to comply with wikedia NPOV policy.
Raj2004 00:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Raj, to say that Vishnu is a god in Hinduims equals to saying that Allah is a god in the Abrahamic religion. Andries 21:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I added more thoughts in Talk-Vishnu so please take a look. Raj2004 03:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin
Hi, dab. As the editor who nominated me for adminship, I thought you might be interested to see this and comment if you like. Thanks. El_C 22:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
User:Zivinbudas
I've now officially requested an Arbitration against Zivinbudas. As one of the people who were involved in previous attempts at compromise with him, you might be interested in the case. Also, feel free to list yourself as one of the parties involved here. Halibutt 04:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
First time I create an article
Hello Dab,
I need some help: I clumsily created an article with the name "three-body force" but realized (too late) that this title was in quotation marks. I guess you have the power of deleting this article: I have created a new one with the same title without quotation marks.
I have also another question: I would like that if people type "three-body system" or "three-nucleon force" in the search, they are redirected to the three-body force article. How can that be done?
Thousands thanks in advance, --Philipum 08:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for this another proof of my ignorance: I should simply have moved the page instead of creating a new one!!! But now it is impossible to move the page to another which already exists. Is there an option "move to trash"? --Philipum 08:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry for the cross-talk. I've deleted the article mentioned above. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 09:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Roylee and other things
Hi, Dieter. I don't know if you're in the mood for self-referential fringe theories and original research — but if so, please take a look at User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee and at the history of Roylee's talk. See also User_talk:BanyanTree#Mende, User talk:Mark Dingemanse#My conversation with Roylee and RC Patrol#04/2005. I can understand if you don't want to involve yourself in this; however, I feel we need several editors together to counter this problem effectively. — mark ✎ 09:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- I knew it, I knew it. You're one of those rogue admins. See User talk:Sam Spade#Rogue admins. Sorry to disturb you. BTW, thanks for your take on the stuff above, it's OK. Wish you well, — mark ✎ 22:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Ghengis Bush
Well, to the right on some issues, and way to the left on some others. There isn't a simple name for my political position (although I suppose "Libertarian" comes close), because it's all issue by issue. E.g. I'm pro-choice on abortion, think personal ownership of guns is just way off base, and feel that religious beliefs are irrational (and I get really wound up about people who think evolution is "just a belief"). At the same time, I think the federal government is way too big (by a factor of 10), think government ought not to be taking care of people, don't believe in any government role in health care, think taxes are Inherently Evil, etc, etc. Noel (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee case opening
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 10:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gilgamesh
Hi there, can you please have a look at the Epic of Gilgamesh entry? A user, Mikkalai, is going around deleting all references to its homosexuality. See talk page for a bit of discussion and give your two cents. He has an attitude of "if I have not read it, it is not true". I even made two citations including the book itself by an acclaimed scholar. At the moment he is engaging in edit wars. 67.41.186.237 03:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- the scholar cannot be acclaimed, since he does not know the language of the source. The other citation was broken link. See Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh. I am not the first one who objects this guy. I will not continue this case. I even will not block this guy for 3-revert rule violation. mikka (t) 03:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not know of anyone else who has objected, just Mikkalai. And I have just noticed both Mikkalai and I have broken the 3 revert rule. Whatever consequences I accept and ask they be applied equally in a fair fashion. 67.41.186.237 03:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Response
I agree with you dbachmann. Although I should point out that, in such a case, sometimes agression is the only tool to counter itself. I agree that if there is a reliable source it should be included, but not in this article, maybe in another related article. Secondly, the only source stating that is based on one completely unreliable interview, as stated before. Thanks for your message.--Anonymous editor 19:34, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Infected blankets
Um, that's a legend. See Population history of American indigenous peoples. Zora 17:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ruthenia
Hi Dab!
If you have the time, I would be very grateful if you would have a look at Talk:Ruthenia#Early middle ages and see whether I am demanding too much from the other contributors. Cheers, Wiglaf 08:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Dab. Your suggestion is exactly what I have in mind, but Ghirlandajo is an anti-normanist (I have followed his edits on these articles for about a year) who seems not to want that theory mentioned at all.--Wiglaf 10:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kalevala
Thanks for your comment. You said it much better than I did :)--Wiglaf 14:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Choronographos
Hi Dab, I am refraining from commenting on Chronographos' rudeness at the moment. His attacks on Decius make me hit the roof. Is it time for a warning now?--Wiglaf 12:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I am glad that you like my maps :o). Thanks for making the blank one, it got me started.--Wiglaf 13:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gaulish language
Great edits you have been making on Gaulish language, looking at the history the article is a lot better then it was. Do you think a references section would help? I am thinking of Meid, Delmarre, and Lambert. --Nantonos 16:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see you reverted my edit on Gaulish language, adding back the non-attested and unlikely Gaulish word *mabos. Your comment states that "(I'm afraid Welsh cannot be considered descended from Gaulish)". Perhaps, then, you could explain exactly how British differed from Gaulish? Preferably with a reference. The sound shift p->b when moving from British (ie, Gaulish) to Old Welsh is discussed in chapter 2 of Patrick Sims-Williams (2003) The Celtic Inscriptions of Britain: phonology and chronology, c.400-1200 Oxford: Blackwell.
See in particular pp.17-19 of Lambert, Pierre-Yves (2003) La language gauloise (2nd ed) Paris: Editions Errance. ISBN 2-87772-224-4 for a discussion of the proximity or identity of Gaulish and (first century BCE) Brittonic, and the contributions of the Larzac and Châteaubleu tablets and the lead defixiones from Bath in the debate about whether ancient Brittonic and Gaulish were identical, or just mutually intelligible.
--Nantonos 01:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have edited it to add references and use only attested forms, mapos in Gaulish and maqi (because I could not find a single maqqos or maqqi in Sims-Williams, but found nine MAQI two MAQ(I) and two MAQ. Since mapos is attested it does not have the leading *. I removed mention of Old Welsh and of your *mabos (which, by the time of p->b would also have softened and then lost the -os, so the example is ahistorical, having features of two different historical periods. I added a second example, epos/ech and gave the IE root form as well. --Nantonos 01:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I like the extra detail you added about some of the inscriptions. I wonder where "demon or deity" comes from, regarding Maponos, whom I have never heard described as a demon before. (Maponos later developed into Mabon_ap_Modron of course :) ) Oh and well done to find some spindle whorls whose inscriptions were clean enough to be translated ... I have seen some that are more lust than love --Nantonos 19:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: "Q only in Roman names (if at all?)" - Sequanni (tribal name), equos (month name). So rarely, and not necessarily only in Roman names. There is debate about whether Q is an archaism (P/Q stuff) or reprresnts a separate and unrelated sound. --Nantonos 22:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zora's POV crusade
Dab,
Im not belligerent. In fact, I didnt start any of these edit wars. Zora did. And contrary to what it seems, I am not alone (and hence not pushing a personal view). Only, everybody else got so tired of Zora's resistence to accepting facts, and simply left. Me, SC, Pedram, Amir85, Aytakin, EmilyZilch, and Mani1 have all been saying the same things. Zora is the only opposing party. She has repeatedly deleted all of our contributions, even though she was heavily outnumbered. And she, contrary to all the mentioned editors, does not even know the history, culture, and our language, to debate us.
She debates merely for the sake of debating. A pleasure derived polemist.
Consider the following scenario that has happened several times to me:
She asks for sources. You give her the sources. She dismisses them as outdated. Then she comes back and uses the same sources against you in another argument later on. You then tell her about this. She responds that your style of writing is un-professional, and therefore must be edited, thus blanking out and rewriting the page from A to Z, calling it "a compromise". (what nerve!!).
What can you say to someone who thinks they must be right because they were merely (in her own words) "a National Science Foundation Fellow and a Fulbright Scholar"? Is that reason? Condi Rice didnt know Iran and The Taliban (were) are Islamic ideological opposites. And what was she?...chancellor of Stanford? Newton practiced and believed in Alchemy. Einstein dismissed Quantum Physics. And besides, I have just as much, if not more education than she does. And I am a 2 time fellow of the DOE. I am especially more knowledgeable than she is in matters of Physics, Engineering, Iran, and Islam.
When she disrespects your every edit, deletes it, and rewrites it, and follows you around everywhere doing this, over and over and over and over again, you WILL start getting pissed off even if youre Mother Teresa. And she wont quit!!!
I can safely claim that I am one of, if not the top contributor to Wikipedia's Iranian pages. I have worked with numerous editors. And Zora is the only person I have come across who refuses to accept edits by people opposing her.--Zereshk 13:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis' crusade against Enviroknot
This has been going along for a while - most recently Fucktitis has abused his admin powers to edit Enviroknot's page after it was locked back down.
Sum total, Enviroknot has consistently denied using or keeping sockpuppets. Yuber and the rest of Etitis's followers/sockpuppets like BrandonYusufToropov and SlimVirgin keep making the accusations because they don't like when Enviroknot gets in the way of their POV pushing. If you look at Toropov for a second, his standard mode of attack is to come up to any newcomer and start berating them about "how long have you been here" in preparation for attacking them as sockpuppets if they disagree with him.
This is complete bad faith on the part of Etitis. It's been seen numerous times before, he regularly picks out editors for abuse based on their getting in the way of his or his friends' POV Pushing but nobody does anything about it because he has the support/protection of a few high-ranked admins.
[ posted by User:62.241.240.82; I will usually not reply to anonymous messages related to edit wars, please get an account (or use yours, if you have one) dab (ᛏ) ]
- Well you implied that only logged-in users were members. Fact is we're open to anyone. I didn't mean to offend you but felt that this was a form of pressure. We do have a lot of valued editors who don't, and won't, create a user account. They're as much members as you or I. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Inviting_folks_to_become_users) - Sorry, nothing doing. If I did, Mel Etitis or one of his cronies would start attacking it. I've seen how they act.
being anonymous, you do not have the same rights. You cannot vote, and you cannot be elected admin. Furthermore, from Wikipedia:Account:
- Some people believe that anonymity is synonymous with a lack of accountability, or may facilitate unproductive behaviour, or that contributing without a fixed identity is disempowering and unpleasant. Such people consider that creating an account and logging in may resolve such feelings.
consider me one of those. dab (ᛏ) 18:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship
...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on pages he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BrandonYusufToropov#.5B.5BUser:BrandonYusufToropov.5D.5D). BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It caught me totally by surprise too
Certainly wasn't something I discussed with Ed, though I can't say who else might have spoken with him. Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 17:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jibreel
You raise some good points, and I will have to look this one up -- I don't know of any specific pronouncements by Jesus about Jibreel/Gabriel in Q, which is my first stop on all these kinds of issues (after the Qur'an, of course), but my sense is there's nothing there that conflicts with Qur'an ... have to look it up, though... Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 18:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Messiah
No, no, no dispute -- this is actually one of my favorite topics. What he understood himself to be (at the time!) is one of the most vexing questions of history. I personally believe he thought himself simply to be a great prophet in the line of prophets, and that he was aware of some special status. Like Muhammad, he had a strong sense both of his mission and of his identity, and Jesus' pronouncements in Q (and elsewhere, less reliably) could sometimes seem harsh and tactless. (Muhammad's seem more inclined to the realities and limitations of humanity to me, but I'm not a neutral observer.) Neither man would have been easy to ignore, I think. :) There are startling parallels in their careers, of course. Qur'an pronounces Jesus as Messiah and leaves it at that, and for my part I am inclined to follow suit. BrandonYusufToropov 18:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I prefer to equate Muhammad with Paul; Jesus may have had a sense that something was brewing, but he was probably totally wound up in what in retrospect we would consider provincial issues. Paul was the man for world politics. btw, do you know Behold the Man by Michael Moorcock? There is a daring hypothesis of Jesus' anticipation of what was to follow :) dab (ᛏ) 18:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A message for Dab
Since you asked, Dab:
- I only use this account.
- I keep no other accounts.
- I do not edit anonymously, nor do I edit from any other accounts.
- I am not involved in any sockpuppetry, and Mel Etitis' attacks are groundless.
That is as clear as I can make it. Enviroknot 23:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have crossposted this to your talk page to make sure you see it. I am getting very tired of these attacks by Mel Etitis and even more tired of his throwing his weight around as an admin to harass me. Enviroknot 23:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
WP:AN
Why did you remove your comments? I thought they were well-stated and constructive. Radiant_>|< 10:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
sword
I think your recent edit to remove the 'sword-like objects' section may have been too hasty. While it's admittedly a silly name, I did some reasearch, and the term really does have a lot of usage. I think it needed a rewrite rather than to be removed. --InShaneee 22:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Solstice
Fuse in an alcoholic stupor, you mean. The Weekend of the Sun-Worshippers is the most notorious of the vodka belt binge holidays, human life made precarious in drunken knife-fights, yet renewed by the procreative urges! Have some cake! Bishonen | talk 03:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Wheel
Regarding the wheel that you mentioned, Please ask Zora what type of proof does she have in mind? Would you like me to upload or send you a photo of where it gives the date in Iran's Nat'l Museum right under the wheel? I can go there tomorrow.--Zereshk 12:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)