User talk:Dbachmann

---

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

DRV

I am sure you understand that my comment at the DRV on H.p. is primarily based on the feeling it would be more productive not to debate the matter further--not from any disagreement with your basic view--and i notice that Guy said the same--one of the few times he & I agree.DGG 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

sure, it would be best not to debate it any further, after the out-of-process deletion has been reverted. If that doesn't happen, you know how these things go, we'll never hear the end of it. dab (𒁳) 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edit warring has already started at Hindutva. Just look at the arguments given. How predictable. So much for cozy pipedreams of mergability. This may not be DGG's intent, but the message is that the Hindu section of WP has been abandoned as a hopeless case. Will that hurt WP? Who knows. After all, even the moon has kalańka. rudra 00:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

that seems to be the gist, yes: the Hindus are hopeless, let them build their dreamworld. Instead of commending the few Wikipedians that still hold out attempting to let sanity prevail, the verdict seems to be that they are somehow culturally insensitive for not letting the "ethnic" people revel in their own truth. This is racist: they are ethnic, they don't know any better, leave them in peace. I keep getting attacked as "racist" for my fundamentally anti-racist position that everybody has a brain and is expected to use it, regardless of where they are from. It is not alright to disrupt Wikipedia with bad faith tactics or utter stupidity just because you are "ethnic". If the Islamists or the Neocons or the Maoists did the same, the community would rise as one (well, as much as it ever does that) and stamp them out, but apparently it is much more acceptable indulge in dishonest revisionism if you are a Hindu, don't ask me why. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I sigh with you, Dab. In my belief you hit the nail on the head.

Lunarian 10:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflating Hindutva and Hinduism are we? Hindus are not an ethnic race. Your view that Witzel and Co. represent gospel of truth is instrinsically racist. Your reaction to cirticism is pretty much like Witzel and Thapar's; accuse every one of your opponents of being a part of some monolithic Hindutva conspiracy. To be frank i dont believe in the IAT or OIT horseshit. Yet there is a grain of truth/plausibility in wiritings of Witzel's opponents. Witzel doesnt help his position by dishing out vitriol towards Hindus much like you. Moreover you are inadvertently promoting Marxist polemic and half-truths. Take the moronical comparision of Hindutva with Nazism for example. Even Gandhi is held to be Nazi by some Zionists. You have entrenched yourself in such a position where with your self-righteouness you've pissed of too many people.

It is not my job/wish to change your convictions. All i say is come down from your high horse and be prepared for a genuine debate rather than trying to force your opinions down everybody's throats. And for once, cut out all the paranoid conspiracist crap. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Conflating Hindutva and Hinduism"? I am sorry if you didn't follow, but I was voicing an attitude I deplore, not my own. I am blaming people who wrongly think the Hindutva trolls are "the Hindus", and that "the Hindus" are "ethnic" precisely because that is a blatant falsehood. By opposing the fools on one side, I do not associate myself with the fools on the other. I have tried again and again to look for constructive debate to work out that "grain" you speak of, but it was all lost in the trolling. You didn't try to be constructive, you did what was more convenient, you joined the mob. I am not aware of genuine anti-Hindu trolling on Wikipedia, and if there was any, I would not be required to combat it, because the strong Hindu faction will clamp down on it within the minute. I am investing my energies where they are needed. My "opponents" are those who violate Wikipedia principles. Anybody who is willing to collaborate under these principles is not my opponent at all, but my fellow Wikipedian. If my presentation of the Hindutva fringe literature was one-sided, why did you not point out the other side? Meaning in expert sociologist literature of course, not in VoI publications, as will go without saying if you are serious about working together? From the material I have seen, it is clear that you have not done this because there is no evidence to support a counter position: the bad faith involved in the "scholarly" VoI publications is too obvious. A scholar like Parpola wouldn't use the term "trash" if there was any scholarly merit in there. A scholar like Diakonoff wouldn't talk of "complete incompatibility" if he could make out even a grain of merit. My entire point is that this whole "recent evidence" stunt by the VoI crowd is blatant bad faith revisionism, and is recognized as such in academia. Why do I care about this? Because Wikipedia's articles on ancient history keep getting trolled with this nonsense. I really have no opinion on "Hindutva" being good or evil beyond that, and have very little interest in them altogether. Any editor genuinely attempting to work out the "grain" you postulate would need to clearly distance themselves from the disruptive mob from the beginning. Nobleeagle has done that, and this has resulted in the fair Out of India article. Nobleeagle is not my "opponent": he has chosen to document the thing in good faith for whatever it is worth. It turns out it is worth practically nothing, and we'll let it stand at that, no enmity involved. If you could do the same, you would find you are on my side. dab (𒁳) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Its deplorable that an administrator makes such a sweeping statement as "the Hindus are hopeless" etc. I hope sanity prevails at last. Praveen 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf? what happened to reading a comment? I was myself deploring the additude. Will I spend the next year pointing this out now because some people have the attention span of an invertebrate? dab (𒁳) 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf! Its like saying "all the family members of dab are asses" and then deploring the same sentence after another sane user points out the generalization. Praveen 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh ? (Lunarian 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, Praveen definitely misinterpreted that statement. Let me know if he tries to 'prosecute' you based on that. The Behnam 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

feeling and strategy

You asked me to explain why my "feeling" that the page should be abandoned was a rational response.

1. With respect to the truth of the underlying subject matter, it's not a question of feeling: I agree that the Hinduvista scientific claims discussed in that article are wrong because I know that they contradict the well-established data of anthropology and linguistics, and I think I know enough of those subjects to tell--it doesn't take much to show they are wrong.
2. How to express opinions is also something to be learned. Rhetoric is a subject to be studied, both formally and informally through careful observation and experience. This is a less exact science than linguistics--we may know generally that over-argument is not productive, but we cannot completely rely on a knowledge of rhetoric to known when enough is enough.
3. Fortunately, in addition to our rational facilities, we also have the emotional facilities for living with other people--developed much further back in biological evolution. Though we could come to these decisions analytically, through the methods of social science, this is rarely practical. Informal experience and common sense tells me that it is usually better not to try to squash one's opponents completely, and that it is usually impossible to actually convince someone with a strong emotional commitment to a position and supported by others who share that commitment. It also tells me that those most deeply involved in an argument are often not able to determine when this applies, and there is often occasion for the friends of one of the parties to intervene and bring about a truce.
4. We integrate our decisions by our feelings. Feelings does not mean raw emotionality. It means social judgment.

DGG 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In relation to Wikipedia, you have made an argument to revise the article, not to delete it. What you, and everyone else in the DRV, have signally failed to address is the issue of process. Even if the article ought to be deleted in principle - which you haven't established anyway - why must the deletion in fact be done in such a blatantly out of process manner? "Social judgment" in this case has been nothing but whitewashing a transparent play for a vote bank. rudra 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please take a look at Battle of Thermopylae? Some users are inserting the upper-bound of ancient estimates in the infobox, which is an impossible mythical 5.2 million Persians! Yet, the same users are removing the lower-bound of modern estimates which is 60,000. This doesn't seem NPOV at all.--Mardavich 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs)

I am more used to newbies and people with a fraying temper to delete unflattering posts from their talkpages. It appears that admins above a certain popularity threshold are allowed to do the same. Hence it may be better to keep track of this discussion (monologue) on my own talkpage. [1]

[2] your method of (not) reacting to criticism, your political understanding of the community as a popularity contest, and your unshakable belief that you have got it right, never mind the rules as long as you have enough buddies, is unwikilike. Do you spend a lot of time on IRC? Daniel, I do not have the time to waste on wikilawyering on an arbitration case at the moment, so that it may well be that this will end here. The fact that you cite your RFA approval rating to back up your impression that you are a law unto yourself now makes it evident that you have an attitude problem. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you :) Nice to know that you liked the tripadi despite my amateurish translation. Sarvagnya

Gone?

Hey Dab! Are you going away? This is very bad, with so many seasoned editors leaving. It grieves my heart whenever I see some one leaving, even those who were banned. I have a lot of respect for you, and your contributions cannot be ignored by any one with slightest of sense. Are those accusations that Wikipedia will fail correct? I hope you don't take my "delete" in bad faith. My delete was only against the article, and I haven't even touched the Hindutva article. It is no doubt there is propaganda, and there are people who accept it. There is no fighting back if you leave. Sanity should prevail. I seriously hope to find you soon. Reply to my comment. Should I enable my email?--Scheibenzahl 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

not at all -- I'm taking it easy for a while, that's all. There is nothing wrong with your "delete" vote, my disappointment is with how the politicians handled the case, not with the voters themselves. Thanks for your comment in any case! dab (𒁳) 06:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Map update

Greets! Can you please update the map on the right to reflect Albania correctly. The country should be set to a color matching a ~10% Muslim minority. Thanks. - Dimror 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture

Thought you might be interested in contributing... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Polytonic

I like your changes. It appears that the fonts are only selected when using MISE6, owing to the "/**/ inherit;". This is not documented when looking at template:polytonic. I would be wise to add a note to the template so users do not get confused (as I became). If there are no complaings I would like to add the changes s:el:mediawiki:Common.css.

Also have a look at s:el:template:πολυτονικό to see how to use the template to make a <div>  Andreas  ^(T) 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

pseudoclasses

It doesn't work, but is probably due to the fact that it is only supposed to work on Internet Explorer 6 (at least in the way you implemented it now), I don't have the appropriate fonts installed and I'm having some font troubles since I upgraded to Debian 4.0 this weekend. —Ruud 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dating issues

Would you take a look at the dating claims being used on Bhagavad Gita? The article currently says "Theories based on archaeoastronomical calculations from passages of the Mahabharata place the incidents upon which the Gita between 5600 and 3100 BCE (varying dates are given according to different calculations). The traditional date reflecting the beliefs of many devotional Hindus places the text in the 4th millennium BC, (3138 BC)" An attempt I made to note these theories as controversial has been reverted. There is also a strong ISKCON perspective. Buddhipriya 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories CfD

I have put up the categories "Fechtbücher" and "Illustrated manuscripts" for renaming here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:Fechtb.C3.BCcher. Johnbod 03:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

'twas out of no contempt

"...prancing throughout a grand drama - Sir, a simple, single, silly affair of that kind - is quite lost in five acts - but that is neither here nor there."

I understand you're an exopedian, but what the hell, I greatly admire the constant quality of your contributions and felt like dropping you a prancing pony. I hope something drizzles on the troubled waters and you can return to editing in peace again. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

urartu

Since you gave many valuable cotribution on page Urartu I would appreciate your opinion on renewed dispute (I lost count how many times this issue is brought oever and ov4er again [3] There is quote from Columbia encyclopedia and some users try question it.--Dacy69 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism and Hinduism

Hi, this article was originally created by the banned Hindutvaadi troll User:Maleabroad, which explains the unverified claims scattered throughout the article. In one sense the topic is valid since the Avesta and the Vedas, the texts which Hinduism evolved from share many similarities. But I wonder whether the page will look much different from Proto-Indo-Iranian religion once it is cleaned up. What are your thoughts? Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, well, concerning common origins, the article should just refer to Proto-Indo-Iranian religion. What should be discussed under this title are much rather historical interactions between the two religions, in particular the Parsis settling in Gujarat. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

count on my vote if it goes for an AfD. As for the unverif tags still in there,... each statement in/of itself is factually ok, and reflect what the articles pointed to by the Main article: ... tags say. But the premise that Zoroastrianism and Hinduism are at all comparable is just plain bad.

With respect to "historical interactions": thats a tough nut to crack, nothing I've read discusses the issue in any systematic way. Beyond the legends of the Kisseh-i Sanjan and Kisseh-i Hindustan (which are both rather polemic), there is really not much to go on anyway: There are some allusions to the Parsis having had non-Zoroastrian (i.e. Hindu) indentured servants, there are a few records of land disputes, there is the matter of the Sixteen Shlokas, there is one documented case of an armed altercation with Hindus, but thats pretty much it. They had their own villages, their own panchayets, and their own Patels, and it appears likely that the Parsis (at least early on) didn't fit into the caste system to begin with. They probably stuck to themselves, which might also explain why so many of them were so miserably poor before the Europeans came. There must have been *some* interaction (otherwise the Parsis couldn't have developed their peculiar Gujarati dialect nor adopted so many little Gujarati customs), including a whole lot of inter-marriage with Hindu women, but when or how this interaction came about is not undocumented.

-- Fullstop 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Matriarchy

wikt:gynecocracy which you linked to from Matriarchy doesn't exist yet -- only http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Gynecocracy ... AnonMoos 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a redirect, but some of the idiot admins at wikt deleted it again, it appears, but failed to move the page. I find people at wiktionary sometimes have their heads stuck in a dark place. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

important

Hi - pls have a look at this ANI report. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I have already reset his block to 2 weeks and explained why he still needs to be blocked for a bit. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts! The revert rudra has shown you is about a deletion of parts of quoted text from a citation because it makes the quote longer. I am pretty sure that you will understand that size of an article becomes an issue only when the article exceeds a certain length which was clearly not a case. I am sorry to say but I do not assume any good faith against rudra because he takes it as a sign on weakness, and has been highly uncivil to me in past. As you can see from the same revert, I did not revert it again, because I have least interest in edit warring.

Thanks for your effort again.--Scheibenzahl 11:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You're protesting too much again, old chap. Just acknowledge the tap, and move on. rudra 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Etymology" section on Iran

You did a good job, but could you perhaps expand it a bit with some of the material from the old version, like the quote from Darius, or the map, and also the paragraph about Reza Shah's declaration to foreign governments to use the native term "Iran" instead of "Persia". I think an English translation of the Pahlavi words in parentheses is also needed. Cheers. --Mardavich 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts Dbachmann? --Mardavich 08:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My two cents...

1. What the Darius quote does is demonstrate is that the Achaemenids distinguished between "Persian" and "Iranian". Is that really appropriate in an etymology of 'Iran'? Wouldn't it also be odd to introduce a term only to later say that its no longer appropriate to use it?
2. With respect to the map: Eratosthenes uses both names, next to each other, i.e. demonstrating precisely what the Achaemenid quote does also. It then has the same weaknesses. Perhaps a picture of the investiture relief would be more appropriate? There are two of these on commons, either one could serve as a fill-in until someone can come up with a picture of the accompanying inscription.
3. Reza Shah's declaration has the same problems as the map and the quote. It would also implicitely re-introduce the Iran naming dispute without having previously said that there is any such thing.
4. IMO, parentheses around the transliteration would be ok if you think they improve readability. Technically and gramatically, the comma-separation is fine, but anything that improves readability is good too.

-- Fullstop 12:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita

Thanks for keeping Bhagavad Gita on your watch list. There are a number of POV issues on that page that have been noted before on the talk page. Until recently the only sourcing for the article was from material by Swami Prabhupada, and his commentary is rather idiosyncratic. The article on him reads like a fan site, and similar issues may arise with the Bhagavad Gita article as different perspectives begin to be raised. I feel that the resistance to addressing the dating issue connects to a larger issue about neutrality with the article. If you would assist with ensuring compliance with NPOV there it would be helpful. Buddhipriya 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Phoenician et cetera

Thanks for adding the template of Phoenician letters to the article. It'll be depressing to see you go. You've done so much work here, but I guess duty calls, huh? See you around, hopefully again in the future. Good luck. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:Image:Kaligoddess.jpg

You tagged the above with a notice that the image was copyrighted and "used with permission" -- I see no evidence that the copyright owner ever gave permission, just that someone "found it on the web" and colorized it. Colorizing it gives a copyright for the extent of the creativity involved in the coloring, but it does not overrule the copyright of whomever originally created it, which at this point is unknown. I don't know if there's a tag that fits for a situation like that, but I do not believe the current one is accurate. 00:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, and of course it might end being moot if the image ends up getting deleted anyway, per the notice on the current tag.... DreamGuy 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

um, no, there is no permission. I use {{copyrighted}} to mark images that are known to be copyrighted and belong deleted. I realize that the template text says something of "permission" -- what would be the correct template to use, then? dab (𒁳) 08:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

A request for arbitration has been filed involving you. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As it says on my userpage, I really do not have the time to indulge in elaborate wikilawyering at this point. Please stop sending me emails about it. I will look into it and comment as I get round to it, over the next few days. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration help needed.

Moo,

1. do you have (or could you please generate) an IAST-conform transliteration of RV 2.28.5?
2. (semi unrelated to 1.): do you have a PIE reconstruction of IIr. *marta? Is there a morpheme boundary between /a/ and /r/? Have you read anything about 'death' == 'make truth' in the RV? Its certainly there in Y. 16.7. Its not an isolate play on words either: its also attested other Ir texts, both old (OP,Av) and middle (MP, ManParth, Ossetic).

Thanks. -- Fullstop 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• [4]: ví mác chrathāya raśanâm ivâga / ṛdhyâma te varuṇa khâm ṛtásya / mâ tántuś chedi váyato dhíyam me / mâ mâtrā śāry apásaḥ purá ṛtóḥ
• there is no etymological connection between mrta (*smr-to-) and rta (*hr-to-). Punning is possible, I suppose, but I am not aware of Rigvedic examples. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice

I think you got one thing wrong about me. My interpretation of facts does not impel me to impose my views on others. To the contrary, the facts impel me to contradict statements and extrapolations not accounted for, cutting short any (sourced) alternative. Concerning sourced facts, this quote of Mallory should apply to all Wikipedia: "Appeals to authority, naturally, only help underwrite the seriousness with which the hypothesis should be considered, not its validity." Rokus01 05:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

you apparently fail to understand that Wikipedia, unlike Mallory (who is talking about research), does not aim beyond "appealing to authorithy". The Nordisk familjebok is an excellent source for Scandinavia related topics, and can stand on its own perfectly well. Of course, if there are more recent sources available, by all means they should taken into account too. dab (𒁳) 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

War on pseudoscience

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		for your relentless fight against bigots and enemies of knowledge Rajamankkan 11:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

hello

you commented a while ago on Talk:Islam about a few areas in which the article needed improvement, such as the size. there's been a lot of trimming and stuff done since then (size is ~80kb), and we recently nominated it for GA, so i thought it would be good to get some feedback from yourself. thanks. ITAQALLAH 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of CreationWiki

An editor has nominated CreationWiki, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Do Not Repost "CreationWiki"

As a Recent Changes Patroller (RCP), I am warning you not repost "CreationWiki" again if it is deleted for the third time. Failure to do so will result in a permenant block from making any further changes to Wikipedia. I understand that your changes in the past have been made in good faith and none, that I know of, have been created for malicious intent. That is the reason why I am just warning you for now. Please Note: There is absolutely no personal attack intended rather I am just doing my job as a Recent Changes Patroller. Redsox04 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

hello? wrong talkpage? dab (𒁳) 08:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology For The Warning

I want to apologize for the above warning. I was not very familiar with the process but I wanted to make sure you were aware that if an article is deleted, it shall not be reposted. I was a little unclear of my duties as a Recent Changes Patroller. I am unclear of who exactly it was that reposted the article but I did want to warn you in case it was you that reposted the article. Many schools and universities frown upon the use of Wikipedia because vandals take advantage of the fact that they don't need an account to edit articles. I am just trying to make sure that articles within Wikipedia contain factual and accurate information for scholars to use and educational institutions to trust without a doubt but I may have unintentionally abused my privledge of my title. For that, again, I apologize. Redsox04 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For information. --Bhadani (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Wiccans - thanks!

I've been migrating several sub-articles out of the over-long Wicca main article, very aware that the cut-and-paste job I was doing on the text was a bit crude and uncritical. Thanks for tidying this one up! Kim dent brown 16:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nous

I see you've edited Neoplatonism responsibly in the past, so I wanted to alert you to the intense changes that have been taking place at Nous, just in case you may have the time and expertise to contribute or respond appropriately (it's a bit of a mess). Wareh 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elp culture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 09:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cumae alphabet

I see that you edited Cumae alphabet. The characters however bellow the phrase "The letter inventory was" appear like this ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛ ៛. This may be due to my browser ie, version 10. Perhaps other browsers may have no problems.

I've drawn the alphabet here]. Could you check if the character set is correct? Then this image could be added to the article. Odysses (☜) 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also note the arbitrators' comments here regarding scheduling matters. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:129.69.36.89

It is a shared IP address. I have added the appropriate template. Please delete the User page where you have added some personal information. Thanks and reply on my talk page please.--Scheibenzahl 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

how is a whois lookup "personal"? That's public information, one click away from the anon userpage. dab (𒁳) 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was some information from CheckUser. Sorry there :D In any case, the information you posted is of least interest (and uncalled for). Security through obscurity may not be a good thing, but it is in use through out the world anyway :)--Scheibenzahl 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

user:Herr=dab=. Reverting me everywhere [5]. Username screws up links template. Hornplease 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)