User talk:Dbachmann

Archives:

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 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 Feb 08 / 1F – 06:35, 3 Jun 08 / 20 – 15:15, 18 Nov 08 / 21 14:49, 11 Apr 2009 / 22 – 18:47, 26 Aug 09 / 23 21 Nov 09 / 24 01:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Mahabharata

Hello Dbachmann,I want to add upparva in the table given in Mahabharata Article,what do you suggest,I have also done some modification in top para,please guide me to add upparva in table-list in Mahabharata.--Myth&Truth (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what an "upparva" is. Please try to pull your own weight, ok? I'll be sure to try and help as best I can on Talk:Mahabharata. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,upparva Means sub-parva,As you know Mahabharata have 18 Parva as well as 100 sub-parva(canto),In the table given in Mahabharata Article consists of Parva name list only,It doesn't contain sub-parva name,i have an Idea to add sub-parva name list too,which is given in Mahabharata.

I have also done some Modifications in Mahabharata Article,Please Check them and instruct me whether they are not violating Wiki-policy,as I am new a Newcomer.--Myth&Truth (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you mean upa-parvan? I full list of these would certainly be welcome. I have seen your additions, they seem fine to me except for formatting issues. You should not give naked google books urls as references. You need to cite the work properly, with page number. Also, why do you google for "saraswati river" in a "reference" to the statement that "Bhārata meant the Mahabharata without the accessory legends (Upakhayanas)"? --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,I simply searched articles on google regarding mahabharata,The book by C.V. Vaidya describes Mahabharata Redactions and textual history along with the sarasvati river,So i searched sarasvati river in google,Do you have any good suggestion for searching article and adding them as a reference

I think adding 100 sub-parva Name-list in the table provided in the article will stretch it badly,should it be added seperately.--Myth&Truth (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This can always be split off. You can begin compiling the list in your user-space, for example at User:Myth&Truth/Mahabharata. You can add it to the article once it's complete. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,I have modified that list upto some extent in User:Myth&Truth/Mahabharata.--Myth&Truth (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have completed the 100 parvan name list,Check them.I also gave Reference for it.

• Now regarding my Previous Edit to Mahabharata Article ,Bhārata meant the Mahabharata without the accessory legends,I have provided actual source and its page no,If You prefer it then keep,otherwise revert,Thank you.--Myth&Truth (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dab, FYI: most of the new accounts commenting at Mahabharata, Rigveda, Sarasvati River and related pages over the last two months are socks of the same user. In particular, Myth&Truth (talk · contribs) = Mayurasia (talk · contribs) = Bankelal (talk · contribs) = Mkbdtu (talk · contribs) = Merushikhar (talk · contribs) = Mkbdce (talk · contribs) = Vedvyasa (talk · contribs) = ... and all 115.240.*.* IPs. Some of the points made by the user may well have a grain of validity, but as Rudra and I discovered after much discussion and source-hunting, the user also makes up fake references to push his POV, and resorts to trolling, abusing, and impersonation on being challenged. Thought this information would save you the effort of trying to guide each of the new socks to relevant content policies. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Dear Dbachmann!I donot know what blame has been covered over me,I simply do what you instructed me and I also want to complete remaining tasks of making articles of parvans as you suggested me.I got a nice reward of sockpeppetry from some wiki Admins,Not mention if they think I broke wiki policy.I see now that my Account has been blocked for keeping sock Account.I donot know what it is,But i Request wiki not to block any user on only ip basis,one ip is used by thousand of people daily.Like in my case 115.236-244.--.--,there exists 30 lacs user on it.

• I have completed the Sub-parvans table work,keep it if You think there is any use of it now.I give you my best regards for helping me.Please donot keep hard feelings for me,Thank you--.--Myth&Truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.70.151 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Frei-Laubersheim fibula

Hi, dab. I just put this in the mainspace. It could benefit from a copy-edit by an experienced and interested editor. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for a very nice job. --dab (𒁳) 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Input

Please add your input here Thanks --Sikh-History 09:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Magisterium (fencing)

I have nominated Magisterium (fencing), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magisterium (fencing). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Sandstein  11:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Control of fire...

I know you are trying to improve the article (I only made it two years ago as an assignment for my human evolution course), but the wording changes I made only removed the reference to "James" (I attempted to refer to a specific writer a while ago and I was told that was wrong or something) and used the same references as the rest of the article to turn your two paragraph section under "Evidence" into one and removed the "Claimed evidence..." sentence as neither of us has found a publication other than James that specifically says that the early Paleolithic evidence is controversial. It might be in James and it would be good to use that, but seeing as I've been out of a university for almost a year now, I can no longer access the Library proxy to get to these sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I do hope to work together with you in clearing this up. I think in speculative topics such as this there is no way around mentioning exactly who said what, i.e. when reporting what James said, there is no way around saying "James".

I still do have access to jstor, and I can send you the article if you like. But, of course, the James article is 20 years old and it may be worthwhile to look around for more recent publications. --dab (𒁳) 22:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

At the time my limitations were that I had to find publications within the last 20 years. It was the best I could come up with at the time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You did well, and I have no intention of pulling down your work. My only concern is that the article was being too assertive about extremely speculative claims for controlled fire before 1 Mya. James does make clear that they have very little merit. --dab (𒁳) 06:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was not trying to make any claims and I am not trying to edit war. I just reported on what the papers said. Clearly, a 17 year old paper was probably not the best source back then, but it was all that I could find.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not "report on what the papers said". The paper says "evidence for fire". You turn that into "evidence of controlled fire". The paper has the main purpose of debunking claims as speculative. You go out of your way to present these same claims as fact, in Wikipedia's voice. I can accept that these were honest mistakes, but your present behaviour is difficult to explain in this way. I point them out explicitly, and all you seem to be able to do is say "I didn't hear that. I just report on what the papers say".

The paper's dating to 1989 doesn't even enter into this. If we find a more recent paper of comparable quality, we might consider relying on that when in doubt, but so far this is simply about reporting accurately what your source says, never mind its age.

Look, I am grateful for the work you did on the article, but it has flaws, and they need to be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Control of pseudohistory

Yellow monkey told me you could help me dealing with a editor that´s spreading pseudohistory all over wikipedia.Are you interested?--Knight1993 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You best bet is to present the case at WP:FTN. I am watching this noticeboard and I will react to cases that catch my interest. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If I may intervene, the said user does not really spread fringe theories in the strict sense, but rather more or less subtle misinterpretations and synthesis over a vast range of articles for years now (he is one of top 200 'contributors' in the whole of WP.EN). There is probably not a single edit of him/her which would justify admin action taken alone, but the sheer scale and consistent bias of his/her edits have deteriorated much of what is written here about pre-modern technology and science and have incensed quite a lot of other users by now: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#A massive loophole in WP:Verifiability Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am one of those who have been disturbed by this user's subtle misinterpretations. At the root is a continued practice of subtly misreading secondary sources to make Islamic scientific achievements appear more modern than they really are, and then duplicating those arguments in multiple articles to which they only have marginal relevance. (This duplication contributes to what is an otherwise incredible edit count). It's not as glaring a problem as those you have dealt with, but your experience in dealing with nationalistic bias would be helpful in dealing with this case, if and when it comes to some formal action. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance?

See talk:ghost#Undue weight?. As you can see, this topic is sort of bugging me... and a few weeks ago I had never even thought about it! Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mediation Jat People

Hi fellow editor, I feel this Mediation dispute involves you more than me, as I have been reinstating your edits. See here. Thanks--Sikh-History 17:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in "mediation", I can speak for myself and I do not need "mediators" to interpret my position for me. I appreciate the general sentiment behind "mediation", but I simply haven't ever seen it do any good. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not me that has requested Mediation, but I have reverted edits that were made against your edits, therfore strictly speaking the editor in question is questioning your edits. I can see your logic, and therfore clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks --Sikh-History 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

hi

I want to know what's your reason on protecting Vajra and Rigveda. They were never protected before, but you decided to protect them indefinitely the first time either of them ever got protected.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

These articles are not protected, they are semiprotected. Quite an important difference there. Feel free to check out the article histories if you are interested. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As it hasn't been made clear the reason Everyone Dies In the End is bringing this up here is because these articles has been bought up on WP:RUP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a user who refers to semiprotection as "indefinate block" should get the hang of things a little more before worrying too much about permanently sprotected articles. If some admin should decide to try unprotection, let them go ahead, we can always reprotect if the trolling persists. --dab (𒁳) 16:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like being insulted. That was a direct shot at me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, semiprotecting something indefinitely when it is not needed defeats the purpose of wikipedia. Maybe you should see my history on wikipedia. I have a very good track record for fighting vandalism. Insulting me is uncalled for.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• In case you've missed it, there is currently a discussion on this topic at WP:AN. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jat People

It looks like the mediation on Jat People will take a while and sikh-history said to speak to you.The Jat people page definitely needs improvement so let me tell you what I would like to do and if you're okay with it then I'll go ahead and do it.

• I want to improve the Origins and genetic studies. It has only one sentence on the origins of the jat people but 7 sentences on the origins of the Romany people. the Romany connection needs its own section under jat origins or it needs to be summarized
• In the Origins and genetic studies section I want to add something along the lines of "19th century scholars A,B,C have suggested this theory because of whatever reasoning. However other scholars D,E,F have disputed this because of a gap in the record or some other reason. Include other genetic studies on jat origins."
• I understand you and sikh-history have apprehensions about me because I am a new editor but please respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Sorry, this is stupid. I am myself "experienced with handling disputes". What these articles need are not people patronizing editors as if they couldn't speak for themselves, but editors with experience in the subject matter itself.

I have never seen a mediator willing to pull their own weight in assessing the details of the subject matter. All they do is sit back and say "let's hear your point of view again". This is a royal waste of time for everybody. "Uninvolved" for this mediation thing is an euphemism for "clueless, and proud of it".

I am willing to discuss with anyone willing and able to absorb academic literature on the subject. Anyone unable or unwilling to dig into and absorb academic literature does imho have no business to even consider themselves in a "dispute" on anything. Such an approach would clear the air of non-issues due to half-informed ideologized pov-pushing to a surprising degree. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Physics history articles

Hi Dab, wondering if you are up to speed with pre-modern physics history. One contgroversial Jagged 85 (talk · contribs)[1] has been going around adding stuff everywhere saying that many things were invented/discovered much earlier by Muslims in medieval times, but a lot of people who have checked the soruces ssay they are faked. Can you make a quick survey of it, eg Physics in medieval Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk • contribs)

Many Muslim/Hindu editors are desparate to prove that everything was invented by medieval Muslims / ancient Indians. Since very few of them actually know what they are talking about, they end up distorting things beyond recognition, burying the very real claims of precedence that these cultures do have.

Nationalism and ethnic pride are extremely bad guides to editing articles, even when the editors act in best faith.

In the present case, the article takes valid references to medieval scholarship and compiles them in a way that creates the appearance to the casual reader that medieval Muslim scholarship can somehow be taken to compete with the scientific revolution in the early modern period. Medieval Islamic science is astoundingly advanced, but "astounding" only to those who already have background knowledge on what was possible in the Middle Ages and what wasn't. To people without such a background, medieval science, Islamic or not, is rather astoundingly primitive. You have to be surprised how little was known first before you can be surprised what the scientific pioneers did manage to achieve.--dab (𒁳) 07:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your discussion here and wondered if you might take a look at the material at User:Syncategoremata/Misuse of sources, where I (and others) have collected examples of problematic edits by the particular editor mentioned by YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk · contribs) above? Note that most of the examples collected there are not new, but at least one dates from last month.

I would be particularly glad of any advice about the best way to proceed with this. I am too new here at Wikipedia to know how to respond to such abuses.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

the list you compiled is extremely useful. You illustrate exactly the kind of pov-pushing that is hard to catch and difficult to clean up. The only thing we can do is remove the offending passages. If the user insists on re-inserting them, it is good to have such a compilation for quick reference for the benefit of previously uninvolved editors. If the case is clear-cut, the pov-pusher will run into WP:3RR very quickly. If the case is less than clear-cut, the article in question will likely be tagged for {{NPOV}}, {{synthesis}} etc. for an extended period before somebody makes an effort to sort it all out based on solid references. --dab (𒁳) 07:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The editor involved has been at it for a long time; you and I briefly discussed some of his history of astronomy edits (although without focusing on the editor) about three years ago. He seems to be continually pushing to test the limits, but is careful to avoid blatant violations of the rules. Given his prolific, and frequently improperly sourced, editing, cleaning up after him takes much more effort than he contributes to his edits.

I know that dispute resolution procedures don't deal well with the substance of articles but is there any way to focus on an editor's habitual misuse of sources? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

dab, you mention in your reply about that a "pov-pusher will run into WP:3RR very quickly". I just wanted to show you a quote from one particular editor on the Talk:Indian mathematics page, where he says:

Anyway, I won't be un-reverting the article for now, mostly because I'll be busy for the next few days, and also because I wouldn't want this article to be locked because of the three-revert rule. I'll be back when I have more free time to counter the obvious systemic bias present here. For now, feel free to continue with your revision until then.

This technique seems to have worked well for him, as he can return at some later time when the attention has died down and he is not at risk of falling foul of the 3RR rule. Thus he lives to edit another day.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Hi dab, this is up for featured article status again. It's somewhat improved since the last time, but I still have concerns about it. The problem is that I don't know anything about the issue, so I can't be sure my concerns are justified. If you have time and inclination, would you mind looking at the nomination? See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ myth theory/archive2. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you could do whatever you wanted with that article, what would it be? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If I could do whatever I wanted and I had two days to spare, I would sit down and collect all material we have on "Jesus and history", including historical Jesus, quest for the historical Jesus, historicity of Jesus, Historicity of the canonical Gospels, Christ myth theory and possibly others, and sit down to work out a way to present this material in a cleanly organized way.

The main point I keep making at the Christ myth talkpage is not that the material as such is flawed, or that the editors involved are incompetent, thank god they are doing not such a bad job at all, but that there are numerous other articles of similar and ill-defined scope.

Wikipedia is not just about writing "your" article or defending "your" page, it is about arranging complex material in a clean and encyclopedic way across articles. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's very confusing to have all those pages, and what seems to be content forking. I was wondering how you'd arrange the pages, whether there's a lot of repetition and several could be merged, or whether they'd all need to stay as separate pages but somehow arranged differently. I'm new to this so it's hard to get an overview. By the way, Eugene has just submitted an RfAr. Again, it's hard for me to judge whether it's needed or premature. Your views there would probably be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene wants a content decision from RfAr? This is so ill-advised I actually feel a little sorry for him. He did a good job on the article even if he has OWN issues and I can understand his frustration with the deadlock (A deadlock he has himself helped to perpetuate, by joining the game of IDHT). God forbid the arbcom decides to meddle with this, it mean that the article will be truly buggered for at least another year.

Any experienced Wikipedian looking at the Jesus and history non-disambiguation-page will sit down and weep. This would be very difficult to fix even if it was just left to the good and knowledgeable editors, but of course this isn't going to happen, because the topic will remain trolled by both religious and anti-religious ideologists to a degree that will drive away all genuinely detached and encyclopedic editors. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the second time he's gone to ArbCom about this recently. He asked them to rule on content in February. This time he seems to want to have them warn me. [2]

I've started to write up a list of sources (as much for my own benefit as anything else) at User:SlimVirgin/CMT sources. If you have time or inclination, you're welcome to join in. My problem is that I know little about it and have little interest. :) I only got involved after trying to do a copy edit when it came to FAC for the second time. Not sure I have enough interest to keep me going, but I've ordered some books from the library anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Slim, dab, do you think that the encyclopedia could get by with just two articles: Historicity of Jesus and Historicity of the canonical Gospels? If you do, then I will put merge tags on the others. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You asked "What has happened?" to the Christ myth theory article? SlimVirgin, that's what. As she's indicated that she values you opinion, could you maybe tell her to relax a bit? I think it would really help things coming from you. Eugene (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_April_11

You deleted three files but gave no reason. Two people !voted to keep it and one person questioned whether it was free or not. No one actually explicitly moved for deletion. Would you be so kind as to explain your rationale? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a publication is now PD, correct, or am I missing something? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, no harm here. If I'm wrong, I certainly want to know it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, what is wrong with the previous day's image you deleted as well? Clearly I'm missing something. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Re:Explanation on my talk page) Thanks for the info/background. AnonmieBot (or whatever the damn thing is called) basically pre-deleted the file with no edit summary. Had I known the problem, I would have made sure to investigate deeper. Lesson learned and I'll try to watch out for that in the future. This guy's story keeps changing and with all the copyvios, WP:AGF is pretty much out the window and he's trying to game the system/troll. Thanks for the explanation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati

I have nominated Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikid^as© 09:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Phrygian language

--Alsace38 (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) We are working since 2 month on phrygian vocabulary!

which sourc your want exactly? say it! and for which word?!

My dear friend, i well know that wikipedia is not wikitionay, but as far as i am concerned, it is important to show to people what was this old language: we only did give around 20 words, i hope wikitonnary on phrygian will start quickly,

i have a lot of word on phrygian... take care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsace38 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alsace38, what is your problem? I am glad you have a lot of Phrygian words. Please add them to wiktionary. Try to understand the concerns I am raising on Talk:Phrygian language, and if you like to comment, please try to make a coherent point. I do not absolutely object to listing a few words in the article, just make sure that the etymology of each word is referenced, and avoid listing random cognates in random other IE languages, it's pointless. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Phrygian word "beko" "bekos"

You ask me more detail on this word "bekos",, bread in Phrygian?

In kurdish we say "bakût" It is normal to ve different words beacause phrygian was spoken 1200 BC, and kurdish is spoken now 2010: it make around 3000 years of evolutions!

Bakût is food in Kurdish to say eating bread also!

look at: http://ku.wiktionary.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=gida&variant=ku http://legerin.ferheng.org/search.php?lang=enstitu&query=bak%C3%BBt.

i have a lot of word list but people are angry, they don't want to hear any kurdish words! --Alsace38 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What the hell does Kurdish have to do with anything? Of course we want to hear kurdish words, but not on the Phrygian language page. Add your Kurdish words to wikt:Category:Kurdish language. Because they are, like, Kurdish and not Phrygian. If you want to argue that bakût is derived from bekos, cite your academic reference at wikt:bakût. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on dabs talkpage, but I noticed you were talking about the rather famous Phrygian word Bekos. Alsace38, we can't use Original research on cognates even if they look likely to you or even to all of us. We need published sources that make the connections for us. I noticed that "Bakut" is also similar to Welsh "Bara" but we can't just go suggesting similarities, because in all likelihood "Bakut" and "Bara" have entirely separate histories meaning they are not cognates, but totally separate words meaning the same thing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

--Alsace38 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)wel you are happy to clean ever thing which doesn't has any sources? well, then, will you clean that also? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_languages#Comparison_table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Persian_language#Lexicon ? why not to clean every thing? or is it only self decision to clean what i did wrote?

Scoti and Gaels

There's a lot of duplication in the Scoti article, do you think Scoti should be a redirect or just heavily trimmed? It's discussed on the talk pages of both articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

oh dear. Both articles need cleanup. The Gaelsoneneeeds to make up its mind what it is about, the contemporary ethnicity, the Middle Ages, or remote pagan Celtic antiquity. The Scoti article needs to lose the cheap copy-paste content duplication. --dab (𒁳) 17:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rigveda

Re your slightly snippy edit summary, yes, I'm watching Rigveda. What I'm looking for are problem edits by IPs or non-autoconfirmed editors. User:Atrijoshi's edits to that article would not have been picked up by the previous semi-protection. The one IP edit since unprotection was not a problem edit either, and as you haven't reverted that one, presumably you think the same? GedUK  10:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it. Although your assertion that you this edit (which incidentially I did revert), an alteration to a verbatim quote without explanation or edit summary, is "not a problem edit", I find somewhat strange. Atrijoshi could have made their disruptive edit regardless of semiprotection, this is not the issue. --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a crap mood this morning, shouldn't really have fired this off. Sorry again. GedUK  17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW its on my watchlist too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

it's ok. As long as an article has enough people actively watching it, it doesn't need sprotection. Sprotection is imprtant for articles that are well-developed but poorly watched, because they tend to go down the drain without anyone noticing for months on end. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene and WP:OWN

Hi Dbachmann. Like I said, it's nice to see that your view of the CMT page has grown more positive. The nice comments about my editing above were also flattering. I don't really get the charge of WP:OWN though. I've left some of SlimVirgin's material in the FAQ and I'm not the only one who took some of her stuff out. You've cried foul on this a few times now and I've taken it to heart. I once asked [3] Raul654 what the line was between appropriate opposition to "disinformation" (his word) and violations of WP:OWN; he never got back to me, but I did ask. Any advice? Eugene (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User conduct dispute at AN/I

Dab, I think your input would be valuable here. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories

You are invited to join the discussion here. Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) --Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jass

[4] I am not sure how to fix this, but wouldn't Jass normally refer to games played with cards whose suits include shields and roses, rather than hearts and leaves? See [5]. These cards are even used in Vorarlberg, while the rest of Austria (and Germany) uses German or French suits. Therefore I would be surprised if anybody in Switzerland actually used German suits. I think Swiss suited or Swiss-German suited would be the logical description for Jass cards. Hans Adler 22:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a case for {{refimprove}} of a rather obscure topic. I do not know how the various suits in use in German-speaking Europe are usually referred to in English. Perhaps "Swiss suit" will be better after all. Playing_card#Switzerland isn't very helpful here, in fact all of Playing card would need restructuring, cleanup and reference improvement.

Please feel free to revert my edit, I am not sure it was really an improvement. --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Corn in Rig Veda

The Hinduism article cites this from the Rig Veda: "I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother's job is to grind the corn." (Rig Veda 9.112.3) Corn is a New World crop that was not known in India in the Vedic times, so it appears to be a mistranslation. Do you know the correct translation?

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The basic meaning of corn is just grain, seed or cereal plant, see wiktionary:corn. Apparently some US regions are (or were) dominated by the cultivation of sweetcorn, so that the word acquired a narrower sense in addition to the original sense. Hans Adler 07:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans is right, but nevertheless you cannot just "cite from the Rigveda" in English translation without saying whose translation you are quoting. What your translation gives as "my mother's job is to grind the corn" renders upalaprakSíNii nanaá. This means simply "mommy is a stone-grinder". No term for "corn" is even there, although it is clear that the idea is that the mother grinds grain on a stone. What we are looking at here is the verb kSiNAti "to destroy , corrupt , ruin , make an end of". An upalaprakSin is "one who destroys by means of a stone". Use of this word in the sense of "to wear down grain on a stone", i.e. "to be a miller" is a Rigvedic hapax only known from the single verse you mention. --dab (𒁳) 08:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hans and Dab for the detailed explanations. In the US, corn literally means maize.

Regards, Raj2004 (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

EPIC DATE

hi dab!As you are expert here on vedic topics in wikipedia,i have an query regarding mahabharata composition date,How can you say that Mahabharata was composed around 400 B.C,Mahabharata have a lot of references of sarasvati river which dried up by at least 1900-1500 B.C.In mahabharata it is given that balaram(brother of krishna) visited many sites along sarasvati river from rann of kutch to plaksha(place near yamunotri) which exactly matches with present Ghaggar-Hakra river geography which was dried up by 1500 B.C atleast.it is another matter that whether it is early vedic sarasvati river or not,but it is accepted by many that it was later sarasvarti river mentioned in mahabharata and another later vedic literature.if you donot accept it as later vedic sarasvati river too,then we can say that mahabharata describe a river passing from kurushetra,pujab,rajasthan,pakistan to rann of kutch.in present time no river of such type exists,but a river ghaggar hakra was a mighty river atleast 3000 yr ago with some of its tributries.so some part of mahabharta would have been composed by 1500 B.C. because how can a writer in 600 b.c can tell about a river that not existed that time and dried up 1 millenium before is composition.some other factor may be-

>astronomical dates in mahabharata give hints a period of 1500-3000 B.C for its composition.

>all charactors of mahabharata were known to composers of upnishadas(1000-800 B.C)

it was very old trend to give 600 B.C date for composition of mahabharata because of lack of archaeological facts,but mordern research have shown many new facts.as proff brokington in his sansakrit epics page no-26 give mahabharata earliest date 900 bce,this line with reference was also given in mahabharata article but deleted by some one.you can see it in history 6 months before,--115.240.62.87 (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in reading out Sarasvati River article?

I would never claim that "the Mahabharata was composed" at any date, certainly not in 400 BC. The Mahabharata was redacted around 400 AD, which is not the same as "composed". The text as redacted may contain passages that date back to as early as 400 BC. There may be mythological material in there that is even older, but you cannot date that (what is the "age of a mytheme"?).

A date of redaction around 400 AD, or a date of "composition" around 400 BC, does not preclude that there are certain items discussed that may have a historical nucleus as early as 1500 BC. If Thomas Mann writes a historical novel set in the Amarna period (Joseph and His Brothers), the fact that Akhenaten appears as a character in the novel does not prove that the novel was "composed in 1330 BC". The novel was composed (written) in 1926. Akhenaten lived around 1330 BC. No contradiction. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

hi dab,it is accepted by all scholar that ghaggar river was later vedic river however it was early rigvedic river is matter of controversy,now if we assume 400 b.c as a first redaction time of mahabharta then it doesnot fit in linguistic analysis,because it neither mention buddhism nor any later vedic kings like mauryas and gupta as proff c.v vaidya talked in his book The Mahabharata - A Criticism By C. V. Vaidya page 13,and also how can a writer could write these rivers name without mentioning that they had been dried by 1900b.c,although he talked about a very familier sense to these river that he could also see that rivers.

• apart from sarasvati mahabharta also mention drishtavadi river which was also dried up by 2000 bce

now 400 ad for latest redaction seems a troll because we have already two references

1)we have oldest manuscript of sanskrit 'm.s spitzer manuscript dated to first century .in which list of all 18 paravn of mahabharata is given.

2)The Greek writer Dio Chrysostom stated that the Mahabharata with its one lakh verses was well-known in South India in 50 CE The Mahabharata - A Criticism By C. V. Vaidya page 14--115.242.22.93 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

please try to understand the term "redaction". It means that the work as it stands was given its final form. It is undisputed that the epic existed in some form or other before that date. The source you yourself cite asserts that the Mahabharata is later than Buddha. Your source dates to 1904, and a century later, scholarship is still unambiguous about the MBh being a composition shaping up between 400 BC and 400 AD. If you have any other opinion from a recent scholarly work we are missing, you are most welcome to bring it up.

Also, I understand that you are a returning banned user. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and I see no point in discussing points on the dating of Mbh with you. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not to spend time in idle forum debates. --dab (𒁳) 20:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

dab sir!i understand your points,but i was saying that this point of view(date or composition before 400 b.c) should also be given in mahabharata article,

there is no information regarding its composition before 400 B.C,this is not following wikipedia own policy of neutrality.now its upon you what to do

thanks a lot and sorry for waisting your time on such bogous indian articles,offcourse wikipedia is not here to improve any indian religious article

sir,thanks for discussing it,I am not any banned user,i think it is a habbit of wikipedians to understand banned user from 115.00.00.00 ips discussing indian religious article,but i have done nothing wrong.but if you are not interested in talking to me then i will not.I will give you blessing because inspite of not giving attention to improve indian religious article,you all are making and managing some good articles for whole world,WE ALL ARE THANKFULL TO WIKIPEDIA AND YOU--115.242.96.123 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

well, we would need references to scholars who propose an earlier composition. So far you haven't cited any. Please see WP:RS. Fwiiw, the Mahabharata article is also aware that medieval Hindu tradition dates the Kurukshetra battle to 3102 BCE. The Mbh is clearly not a text with a single author, and the best that philologists can do is state that the extant text was redacted during the Gupta period. I don't think that this lack of accuracy can be improved in any meaningful way. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

sir if you will see mahabharata article 4 months ago Textual history and structure,6th paragraph,it has already a reference of jhon brokington that mahabharata earliest layer may dated to 900 b.c.this information was there in mahabharata article for 1 or 2 year,but removed by any banned or established user why? i donot know.but brokington wrote his book in epic undertaking in 2005.so it is a latest information.thank you--115.242.23.37 (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Brockington is discussing the transition from Vedic to Epic poetry. I do not understand why you are so keen on making Mbh older than it is. What is the point of that? Whatever proto-epic poetry there was around in 800 BC, it was not the Mbh. It was a completely different set of orally performed epic poems, of which some fragments may or may not have survived into the Mbh text. Also, what does the Sarasvati have to do with any of this? Brockington is discussing philology, not the pseudo-scientific antiquity frenzy the "Vedic Harappa" people like to dream up. --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry sir,i was only giving a reference that was given in old page of mahabharata,in this brokington cleary saying that "Parts of the Jaya's original 8,800 verses possibly may date back as far as the 9th-8th century BCE." in old mahabharata page's Textual history and structure,6th paragraph

Now regarding vedic harrapa its really like a joke,i think there is so much false or mythological stories filled in puranas and other vedic article that have waisted a lot of time of scholars to understand.scholars became frustrate of that.due to this some important information in other vedic texts was not refered by mordern scholars because most of the vedic literatire is based on imagination.

at last thank you very much,i think this discussion has grown very long,i read whole mahabharata and found that the geographical places like red ocean(Caspian Sea),gobi desert of china,nile river of egypt,sarasvati river was mentioned in it.i really liked this authentic information.but in case of purana,and other vedic texts i got frustrated by their false imaginated stories.

thank you very much sir,may god bless you that users like you may increase accuracy and level of wikipedia--115.242.33.154 (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Jagged 85

Just to follow up on my comments above, a request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. -- Syncategoremata (talk) 6:35 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Greater Khorasan and related pages and User:Ariana310

If you have time, take a look at Greater Khorasan and related pages (for example Template:Scholars of Khorasan and edits by User:Ariana310). Khorasan historically refered to the region between Dasht-e Kavir and Amu Darya, and its four quarters were regions around Balkh, Herat, Nishapur and Marw. Transoxiana wasn't included in Khurasan (or Greater Khurasan or whatever). Neither was any part of Pakistan. These issues have been mentioned in the corresponding talk page for several times, by several users. This exaggerated definition of Greater Khurasan has become more problematic recently (after recent edits of Ariana310 and creation of templates such as Template:Scholars of Khorasan). Alefbe (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: Although a small political minority in Afghanistan have started to use this exaggerated definition of Khorasan (mostly as a Tajik response to the idea of Great Pashtunistan which was supported by Pashtun ultra-nationalists), it hasn't gained enough popularity to change the traditional definition of Khurasan. Alefbe (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag

Hi Dab - would you look at the talk page of this again? It turns out that Barton didn't use the word 'Kharsag' to denote a mythological mountain. I've also noted on the AfD talk page that Bedson had canvassed !voters from the old AfD (explaining editors like Gandalf who even refused to give a reason for this !vote). As the lead it now irredeemably (I believe) inaccurate, ie we can't have a lead that says "Kharsag; (also transcribed as Khar-sag & Gar-sag) or variations is an archaic Sumerian term used to denote a mythological location, meaning "head mountain", "sacred mountain" or "glorious mountain"" when Barton doesn't associate it with a mountain. This is too literal a use. I agree that we should retitle the article and broaden its scope. I'd appreciate your input on the talk page. I wish we could find a Sumerian expert, they'd probably be able to clarify this so we could easily settle the issue. Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just thought I'd add a personal note of thanks for your expert input on this subject. I greatly appreciate your advice and instruction and look forward to working productively with you in future. Paul Bedson (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you think now, have you seen the latest research being discussed on the AfD page? My preferred option is delete but move whatever content is salvageable to Barton cylinder, which is a new article, and [{Sumerian religion]]. WP:Title alone is a reason why we shouldn't have an article called Kharsag, let alone its dictionary nature now. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag can discuss "Holy mountain (Mesopotamia)" the same way that É (temple) can discuss "Temple (Mesopotamia)". The article can also be moved, but that's just a WP:NAME debate. There is a wide range of possible titles for these articles.

I am not sure what "latest research" you are referring to. This is a straightforward topic (albeit obscure) topic of Assyriology/Sumerology. Expertise is needed, but I don't expect we need to consider any "this just in" type of "latest research". All of this has been well known and well documented within the pertinent academic field for more than 50 years. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean transliteration (if that's the word), which was done in 1994. You can see an excerpt linked to Barton cylinder and the most relevant bit is at the AdF. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you've been editing the article, so you will probably have seen the link. I'm not clear why you removed the cuneiform and ANE categories - I don't care, just wondering what I did wrong there. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I do not understand what you are saying. Why are we discussing this Barton Cylinder, and why does it have a Wikipedia article? This looks like a typical example of a Sumerian mythological text to me. It doesn't appear to deal with any mountains at all. --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I get the picture. We are talking about Christian_O'Brien#The_Kharsag_Epics, aren't we. I am really not interested in this, it isn't scholarship, it is pseudoscholarship. Apparently, O'Brien didn't even get as far as identifying harsag as a common noun, and thus ends up classifying any fragmentary mention of any mountain as a piece of his "Kharsag Epic". This isn't serious.

There is no "Kharsag Epic", O'Brien isn't a Sumerologist, and nobody would consider taking this stuff seriously. O'Brien was made CBE for his services to the oil industry and I am sure he was a decent field geologist. That's it. --dab (𒁳) 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's the only reason we have an article on him, but most of the article is about his fringe ideas. Hey ho, at least we can, as I have, point out such things as current translations as compared to his fictional ones. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the "fictional translations" are not his, they were made by bona fide scholars during the 1890s and 1910s. But it is a bit weak to use 1910s scholarship in a book written in the 1980s. It is also weak to pretend to have a theory based on "Sumerian texts" when your theory in fact rests on a 1918 English translation of Sumerian texts. But this is pseudoscholarship for you: people who go wrong from step one but never stop and keep writing books based on flawed premises for years and years. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean his use of scholarly translations, he actually re-translated some of the texts himself after teaching himself cuneiform. This is clearer on a couple of the websites pushing his work.

So where Barton wrote: 1. gar-sag-an-ki-bi-da-ge \. The mountain of heaven and earth

2. erim-an-ni dingir-dingir a-nun- 2. The assembly 1 of the great gods, na im-tu-ne-es a-ba entered, as many as there were.

He translates it as ""At Kharsag, where Heaven and Earth met, the Heavenly Assembly, the Great Sons of Anu, descended – the many Wise Ones"." Barton continue:

3. mu d e{inu nu-ub-da-tu-da nu- 3. A tree 1 of Ezinu had not been ub(?)-da-an-sig-ga born, 2 had not become green, 3

4. kalam-e*-bi d tak-ku nu-ub-da- 4. Land and water 4 Takku 5 had not an-dim-ma-al created,

5. d tak-ku-ra temen nu-mu-na-sig- 5. For Takku a temple-terrace had ga-as not been filled in,

6. 'u(?) nu-gu(?)-a pugad nu-ub-ra 6. A ewe 6 (?) had not bleated 6 (?), a lamb had not been dropped 7 ,

7. anse(?) nu-me-a-am numun dug- 7. An ass(?) there was not to irrigate 8 the seed,

8. pu-e x-a-bi nu-ub-tu-ud 8. A well and canal '(?) had not been dug, 10

9. anse-ra 11 bir-a-bi nu-ub-tu-ud 9. Horses 11 (?) and cattle had not been created,

1 mu more often means name, but the context here requires "tree"; cf. OBW, 62 9 .

2 The sign is so badly written that it may be either mu (OBW, iyo 3 ) "grow," or tu. Either reading makes good sense in the context.

8 As written on the clay and blurred this sign is illegible. Some lines have to be supplied in imigination. The phonetic complement ga shows that some syllable ending in g stood here. I at first read dug but was never fully satisfied with it. sig (OBW, 308) is possible and fits the context better.

Barton has: The Lord of the Granary had not yet arrived there, the grass had not yet become green. The Lord of the Plough had not yet prepared the land and (its) watering; for the Lord of the Plough, (that) implement had not (yet) turned over the hard earth. The cattle-shed had not (yet) been given running-water, had not been watered from the overflow. The ass had not (yet) been watered; the seed had not been watered. Then, the well and the irrigation channels had not been dug; then, had not been dug for the ass and the cattle.

The Anunna, the great gods, had not known, There was no M-grain of thirty fold, There was no M-grain of fifty fold, Small grain, mountain grain, cattle-fodder, there were not, Possessions and dwellings there were not, Takku had not been brought forth, a shrine not lifted up, Together with Ninki the lord had not brought forth men. Shamsah as leader came, unto her desire came forth ; Mankind he planned; many men were brought forth; Food and sleep he did not plan for them; Clothing and dwellings he did not plan for them; The people with rushes and rope came,

You get the point, if you are interested in this, which I think is probably a waste of time, his translation is here [6] and Barton's here [7] (starting after "A new creation myth". Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work Doug. It's not a waste of time, it's a good opportunity to study a Sumerian text we might otherwise never have looked at. That's the beauty of Wikipedia as I see it, you start up cleaning up some weird article and you end up discovering something beautiful. --dab (𒁳) 06:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the thanks go to Akhilleus, but you make a good point. And now that the AfD is closed, what do we do about the article? Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

KUR has been crying for cleanup for some time too. Both should become section redirects, ideally to a "Ancient Near East" section of a new World mountain article. --dab (𒁳) 06:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ghurids and ethnocentric POV

Hi Dbachmann. Your help is neede in the article Ghurids. User:Ketabtoon is removing sourced material (from both Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam). When being caed with the problem, he tried to challenge these standard reference works with googled pseudo-sources, most of them old books from the 18th century that do not represent the current consensus among scholars. He has no qualifications in that field and he does not understand that the EI and EIr are standard reference works that can only be contradicted by modern published works by distinguished scholars. He calls his sources (written prior to 1880) "authoritative" and "reliable", although they are contradicted by modern scholars (namely Clifford Edmund Bosworth). I have tagged the article, but he is so stubborn that he will immediately revert to his own (Pashtun ethnocentric) POV version. Tajik (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but User:Ahmed shahi is deleting well-sourced material without giving any explanation. See here. Tajik (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik is deleting my edits as if he owns the article and placing too many of his personal Persian views. The sources he cited do not say Ghorid dynasty was Tajik, and, User:Tajik is also removing the history of Afghanistan template and claiming that the land of Afghanistan didn't exist on earth at the time. The Ghorid dynasty was centered, based, ruled from, with its capital at Afghanistan so it should remain part of Afghanistan history. User:Tajik must stop his prejudice Persian-ethnocentrism.

I asked User:Tajik to show us the complete paragraph or at least the most important lines from the questionable source that he is using (Encyclopedia of Islam) but he (User:Tajik) only provided few words out of context to try to convince us with, and I believe he has done that so as to hide something from us. Plz see Talk:Ghurid_Dynasty#source

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you really trying to fool him by claiming that my sources do not support the view?! Maybe you should READ the sources before deleting them! See here, once again for you and for Dbachmann to check:

• "... The Ghurids came from the Šansabānī family. The name of the eponym Šansab/Šanasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Wišnasp (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 282). [...] The chiefs of Ḡūr only achieve firm historical mention in the early 5th/11th century with the Ghaznavid raids into their land, when Ḡūr was still a pagan enclave. Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the Šansabānīs in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks. [...] The sultans were generous patrons of the Persian literary traditions of Khorasan, and latterly fulfilled a valuable role as transmitters of this heritage to the newly conquered lands of northern India, laying the foundations for the essentially Persian culture which was to prevail in Muslim India until the 19th century. ... - Encyclopaedia Iranica, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, (LINK)
• "... The Shansabānīs were, like the rest of the Ghūrīs, of eastern Iranian Tājik stock ..." - C.E. Bosworth, "GHŪRIDS", Encyclopaedia of Islam, CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed., Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... Bahrām Shāh (511-52/1118-57) had to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Saldjūqs; thereafter, the chieftains of Ghūr became increasingly stronger, and after long struggles drove out the Ghaznawids. The Ghūrīd dynasty [q.v.] was probably of Tādjīk origin. The fortunes of this dynasty were checked by invasions of Afghānistān by the Ghūzz and the Khwārizm-shāhs. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN". Encyclopaedia of Islam, CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed., Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV

You have also deleted well-sourced information which explains that, according to modern scholarship and available evidence, the Ghurids were NOT Pashtuns (as YOU stubbornly claim and propagate):

• "... There is nothing to confirm the recent surmise that the Ghūids were Pashto-speaking [...] the Paṭa Khazāna “Treasury of secrets”, claims to include Pashto poetry from the Ghūid period, but the significance of this work has not yet been evaluated ..." - C.E. Bosworth, "GHŪRIDS", Encyclopaedia of Islam, CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed., Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... It is clear, however, that all this literature was in Persian, and claims which were made in Afghanistan some decades ago (e.g., Ḥabībī in his ed. of Moḥammad Hōtak) of the existence of poetry in Pashto from the Ghurid period remain unsubstantiated. ..." - Encyclopaedia Iranica, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, (LINK)

You are the only one who calls these excellent scholarly sources "POV" and "OR". So far, you were not able to present even one accepted scholarly source supporting your ethnocentric POV-claims. Tajik (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminding you once again that the Pashtun people are not limited to Pashto language, some Pashtun tribes are Persian-speaking or Persian-speakers but they are not Tajiks. The Ghoris mother language is unconfirmed so the language issue is useless at this point. In the medieval era people in the Afghanistan region were not recognized as Tajiks or Pashtuns, they were recognized by their area such as Ghori (meaning of Ghor), Ghaznavi (of Ghazna), Khorasani (of Khorasan), Balkhi (of Balkh), and so on. The area of Ghor was multi-ethnic and multi-religious, as was the case with Ghazni and other places.

I respect Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Iranica but they are not claiming that Ghorids were Tajiks, they are telling us their view. It is you who is not respecting the other sources who believe that they may have been Pashtuns.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You neither respect nor accept the most authoritative scholarly sources. That is the reason why you delete them from the article without any explanation (my proof). And see the quotes above: the consensus is that the dynasty was NOT Pashtun (as you claim) but most likely Tajik. So far, you were not able to present any valuable sources. All you have posted were a few unrealiable websites, a link to a Pashtun newspaper ("Sabawoon"), and 3 links to outdated books from the 19th century which are not accepted (and clearly rejected) by modern scholarship. Tajik (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The rules of Wikipedia is that we present both views in the article. Sabawoon (Afghanpedia) is a respectable Afghan website and you may dislike it as much as you want but the information in their site is very accurate. I don't understand what kind of an Afghan are you to be hating your own nation so much, removing Afghan history templates from articles that are part of Afghanistan's history. You hate anything and everything that is from Afghanistan, prepared by Afghans, or has the name Afghan in it. Can you at least explain why you are doing these anti-Afghanistan things when we see on your front cover that you proudly present yourself as an Afghan? Why are you disrespecting your national history?

Ahmed shahi (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The rules of Wikipedia require that the consensus among scholars is presented. Other minority views need to mentioned exactly that way: that they are minority views and are not accepted by modern scholarship. You are trying to establish your un-scholarly POV views as some kind of equally accepted theory which is certainly WP:OR. You represent and support a MINORITY view which is explicitly REJECTED by modern scholars (see the quotes above). "Sabawoon" is not a reliable source, it is an online news-paper in Pashto which has been criticized as Pashtun-nationalistic by many people. In no way can that unreliable source challenge the aforementioned encyclopedias. You need to learn the most basic rules of Wikipedia! Your POV and your stubborn ethnocentric propaganda is destroying the article's quality. Not to mention the fact that you pruposely and systematically remove well-sourced information and quotes by scholars only because they do not support your extreme nationalist POV views. Tajik (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against the rules of Wikipedia, whatever it says we follow them. You didn't explain why you're attacking your own nation, Afghanistan? Plz stop lying about Sobawoon, it is an English language Afghan site with very accurate information.[8] If other neutral 3rd party editors agree that Sabawoon is an unreliable source then you have a point but for now you have zero. Nobody in Afghanistan believe Ghorid dynasty being of tajik ethnicity, it's just you (one individual) claiming this proof-less theory.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

a) Wikipedia is not about defending national interests. Yes, I am from Afghanistan. But that does not mean that I have to publish nationalistic nonsense and unscientific propaganda as you do. I want the article to be fully according to the general consensus among scholars as presented in the most authoritative encyclopedias of oriental studies. You totally fail to understand this simple fact.

b) this is the correct link to Sabawoon, and it is by no means a cite-able source. For example, it claims that Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan while degrading all other ethnic groups (link) - a claim that is not and will not be supported by any serious source. Of course, you do not understand this. You fully support unscientific and ethnocentric claims like that one. You are not here to write an encyclopedic article but to promote nationalist nonsense. That's also the reason why you see Wikipedia as some kind of platform to "defend national interests" (as one can see in your posting above).

c) Whether people in Afghanistan consider the Ghurids to be Tajiks or not is fully irrelevant. This is not about what people in Afghanistan think, this is about what scholars and experts say.

Tajik (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A. You're actions which includes removing the Afghan history template explain that you have an agenda to alter the history of Afghanistan.

B. I don't know why you're bringing the Sabawoon website into this discussion? I didn't cite anything from there in the Ghori article. I only used Afghanpedia as a reference in other articles. The information in Afghanpedia is accurate, it's the same as what you find else where, and, they don't reveal to us the ethnicity of Ghorid dynasty.Ghurids

C. Scholars and experts can only say that Ghori dynasty was either Pashtun or Tajik, but they simply don't know. And, why is it irrelevant what the people in Afghanistan think? Is it because you hate Afghanistan and its people or is it because you think the Ghori dynasty was not in Afghanistan?

Ahmed shahi (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Afghanopedia belongs to Sabawoon website and its articles don't have authors. What should be put on Wikipedia is scholarly conclusions that "There is nothing to confirm that the Ghūids were Pashto-speaking" and they were most likely or probably of Tajik origin.-Raayen (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

why is this on my talkpage? You are welcome to draw my attention to the discussion, but the discussion itself should be at Talk:Ghurid Dynasty. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Biblical POV-pusher

A user is adding 19th century Biblical cruft to the effect that democracy has its roots in the Bible and was invented by Moses, and is willing to edit-war to have his way [9] [10] [11]. Similar situation over at Moses [12]. He has asked for an RfC but apparently can't be bothered to wait for it [13]. Athenean (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He has some interesting material. WP:UNDUE where placed, to be sure, but too valid to just be buried. Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel Langdon, I wonder what the topic is here, perhaps Antidisestablishmentarianism, or certainly the separation of Church and State debate, Republicanism in the United States, Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Of course it is silly to claim that "Moses invented democracy", but I think we have a rather obscure intellectual tradition here that would deserve some attention. --dab (𒁳) 06:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Tunisia compsite NASA.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Tunisia compsite NASA.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

what part of "This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA" do you find less than satisfactory? --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/left of the "disk of nebra" photo

Further information: File:Nebra Scheibe.jpg

Hi there, I'm just trying to understand the copyright/left jungle concerning uploaded photos, and found that the county of Sachsen-Anhalt claims to have the copyright for the above mentioned disk of Nebra. On the other hand, you as an experienced Wikipedian have uploaded that photo without any trouble, so how this comes together? Did I oversee anything, or did they grant you some exceptional permission? With regards, QNiemiec —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qniemiec (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I took that image myself, with my own camera. So the county of Sachsen-Anhalt has nothing to do with it whatsoever. What the county of Sachsen-Anhalt claims is that they own the design of the disk, i.e. even if I was to make a drawing of it, they would still own it. This means, they claim intellectual property on an ancient artefact, designed in the Bronze Age. I don't know whether this is going to work under German copyright law, but as I am in Switzerland and the Wikimedia servers are in the USA, I don't really care, as German law does not apply. --dab (𒁳) 06:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the wonderful photo! Hans Adler 08:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was lucky, it was a cheap digital camera in a badly-lit exhibition, most other pictures were blurred, but the one of the Nebra disk turned out fine. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Fork

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Syriacs&redirect=no

Sock Puppet of AramaeanSyriac

130.17.218.242 (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jatt-Sikh

Hi fellow editor. Wondering whether you could help me out on this article. One of the editors seems to have taken exception to the fact I am asking for page numbers and ISBN numbers for refrences he wants to quote. Thanks --Sikh-History 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am losing my patience with the Indian gotra-cruft articles. If the Indian family historian editors cannot get their act together and produce clean articles, it is my opinion that we should adopt a slash-and-burn (WP:TNT) approach and blank everything that doesn't satistfy required standards. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I have come 3swordz (talk · contribs) before, and received the impression of a highly unreasonable editor completely unamenable to common sense. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi fellow editor, please intervene, as I have had to issue a final warning here, due to his personal attacks. See his latest attack here. I have tried to be patient with this editor but he persistently does not assume good faith, and persistently attacks my motives for editing. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with your policy. Jatt Sikh was a clasic example of such an article. I fear it is going back to being a joke. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see what he considers a personal attack. It is SikhHistory that up until recently repeatedly deleted cited info because he feared a "phallus-contest," and called me a racist. As for common sense, "dab," referring to our conflict, realizing that Aum and Ik Onkar are two different things is common sense. As soon you started to try to smear me by associating me with disreputable scholars, in addition to the constant strong-arming, I just gave up; I was content to make my case in that page's archive for all interested to see, and leave. I will not do so here, just because SikhHistory thinks cited, important statistics on Jatt Sikhs is nothing but showboating.3swordz (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

3swordz discuss the article and not the editors. Reflect on your own behaviour and how you can make better articles, rather than attacking editors. Back to topic. I would like to see dab peer review Jatt Sikh and add/remove content to make it encyclopeadic. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

a)I was under the impression "dab" was discussing me. That's quite an oversight, but I suppose he's an admin whose favor you're trying to cull, so whatever. b) better articles means adding relevant info about Jatt Sikhs, a significant community, not the just the info you want to see and covering up the rest. c) if "dab" has an ounce of integrity he would not delete such relevant info and top-shelf citation, grudges notwithstanding. ps please don't use the phrase "peer-review," lol. we've been over this, academic journals are scholar-written and scholar-reviewed, hence "peer." get it?

As for the first statement in this section, I've told you at least six times now that PRJs don't have ISBNS and don't follow book citation formats. Then you call it a personal attack when I say you seem unfamiliar with them, while failing to address "racist," the only explicit personal attack in this engagement. 3swordz (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Note throughout this 3swordz, you are discussing editors and not the content. Therin lies the problem. Thanks

Speedy deletion nomination of VISIS

A tag has been placed on VISIS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Fæ (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the template above. I have applied CSD as the previous version of VISIS appears to be a disambiguation page for VSIS, not quite the same thing, and the page is currently used to promote a non-notable consultancy. It may be worth having an AFD if someone thinks it's needed. Fæ (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

you could also just revert to the disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 11:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Brahmin

The article needs to be semi-protected, I suggest. Mitsube (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a mess anyway. I suggest anything that isn't satisfactorily referenced should be removed, and after that we can semiprotect against renewed addition of unreferenced stuff. --dab (𒁳) 13:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that in the next couple of days and get back to you. Mitsube (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright I did it, can you semi-protect it now? Mitsube (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Kambojas etc still a sprawling mess

Have been looking again at it all today. Do you remember we discussed a book that Satbir was vehemently defending, "The Kambojas through the Ages" by one Kirpal Singh Dardi, a retired civil engineer? It's still cited in 70 articles. Dardi himself has a biog in Indian Kamboj educationists and writers, an article that somehow survived AfD but is tagged for merger. It all seems to have started with a big copy-paste effort in around September 2005, by User: Sze cavalry01 and prolific IPs. One legacy is the misspelling "Stein Konow", still found in 7 articles. The reference text on Indian epigraphy by Sten Konow is cited in very many articles - venerable scholarship, I'm sure, but perhaps to be treated as primary. What is to be done? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So, it seems we have Mr. Dardi who decided to port his work to Wikipedia in 2005. Or a case indistinguishable from that. As we have pranced around with Sze cavalry01 and socks enough to clamp down on him and ban any future socks on sight, this is just a matter of cleaning up any of his crap wherever we come across it. Good work spotting this, Judith. I am at present too fed up with the Indian gotra-cruft to lend a hand, but I am sure I will get back the strength to do a little bit of that soon. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem with doing more, apart from time, is that there is scholarship in there, even if it is mainly a nationalistic rehash of Victorian speculation. I think all Dardi's works have been published in Punjabi. He wrote a history of the rivers and canals of Punjab, which might be considered a reliable source on the subject. I suspect it is his fans rather than himself that pasted the material onto WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Names of God in Old English poetry

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Names of God in Old English poetry. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of God in Old English poetry. 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.

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. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

de:Schwertkampf

Hallo, du hast am 10. März 2010 ein Redundanzbapperl an de:Schwertkampf gepappt. Ich habe gestern etwas dazu auf der entsprechenden Diskussionsseite eingetragen. Vielleicht hast du Lust, auch etwas dazu zu sagen. Grüsse,--Stanzilla (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanzilla (talk • contribs)

Danke für den Hinweis. Da du mit mir einig zu gehen scheinst, was diese Artikel betrifft, glaube ich ein weiterer Kommentar meinerseits ist überflüssig. Vielen dank, --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories

Thanks very much for your interest in, and recent edits to, Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories. I mentioned on the articles talk page that I think a merger to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact would be appropriate. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

my thoughts are that you are right. Regarding such content as can be salvaged from the article, which, scrutinizing the referencing, will probably not be very much. --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for input

Please see Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice on getting format consensus?

Care to give me some advice here? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

sarasvati river

Hi, dab! can you have a lok on sarasvati river article, when i read it 1 year ago, it was quite good with suitable references, but now it has rewritten like a story without any reference. i will recommend you to set back this article to your last modificstion to this article.otherwise wikipedia will seem like a place of stories,thank you--202.141.47.146 (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)