User talk:Dbachmann

An invite to join WikiProject Russia

Hi, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Russia. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Russia.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2011; 15:10 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dbachmann. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dbachmann! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Warning: horrible pun to follow.

Since you did such a great job turning the de-disambiguated Broadsword into a fine article at Basket-hilted sword, how would you like to - wait for it - take a stab at doing the same for Great sword? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BD2412 (talk • contribs)

I am not sure I am too happy with this approach... I believe it turns out the case is not really parallel to "broadsword", but I may be wrong.

It turns out that the spelling as a single word, greatsword arises in the 1930s[1]. Before that, of course you find lots of instances of "a great sword", back to Revelations 6:4 (gladius magnus). The term broadsword is easily a century older [2], the hyphenated broad-sword even earlier[3][4].

My point is that "broad-sword" was a real term back in a time where swords were still in use (if only for gentlemen's duels), but "greatsword" dates to the era of Errol Flynn. The terms "broadsword" and "basket-hilted sword" coincide almost perfectly, with only the very earliest examples (16th century) having no basket-hilt, so that they can easily be treated as a stage in the development of the type. A "great sword" can basically be any sword which is "great". --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm fine with that approach. I just don't think it is a truly ambiguous term. bd2412 T 22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I added a few words to the effect that this is a modern coinage. Perhaps this should be covered in the main sword article, and the term redirected to a section there? bd2412 T 22:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Now I am wondering about Two-handed sword also. Perhaps the best solution would be to create an article about terminology used to identify or classify swords, and merge and redirect all of these collections of terms (Great sword, Two-handed sword, Longsword (disambiguation) into that. What do you think? bd2412 T 23:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
      • yes, an article about "sword terminology" might be the best solution. The more I know about this topic, the more difficult it becomes. At the center of this problem seems to be the longsword terminological conundrum, or in other words, the breakdown of medieval sword morphology after the 15th century. But it doesn't begin there. It is almost incredibly difficultto figure out what terms were used for which weapons in the 13th century (the baselard group of terms), and things went downhill from there.[5] Normally, you'd think that this is the problem of a beginner, and reading the literature would clear things up, but not here. We may just have to live with the fact that nobody seems to know for sure just what a "longsword", a "bastard sword" or a "great sword" is. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Indeed, that seems like an ideal reason to have an article explaining why these terms have such indefinite meanings. I have put together Terminology used in the classification of swords from these disambig pages, to start with. bd2412 T 20:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts -- imho this could be merged with the Types of swords article, which is little more than a naked list of articles. --dab (𒁳) 08:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Germanic-speaking Europe

FYI, your redirect was reverted by an IP editor. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hoax

Answered on my talk page. --Ecelan (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Answered again on my talk page. --Ecelan (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have taken this to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Ecelan (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you have. --dab (𒁳) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Tengrism

I've inserted your changes in the right section.--Tirgil34 (talk) 21:06, 13. March 2012 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC).

Manipulation, pseudohistory, sockpuppetry & persistent vandalism

Please check this link because we have one serious issue. User Tirgil34 (known for pseudohistoric claims at Scythian languages) along with Maikolaser (most likely his sockpuppet) have started aggressive Turanist agenda not just on English Wikipedia but also all others, even Commons. There are two issues:

• File:SogdiansNorthernQiStellae550CE.jpg - He/They've started to change date at commons from 550 to 700CE just to prove Heptalitian Sogdian dress is actually "Turkic". Then, he/they added false descriptions to English articles containing that picture. Photo is named after "550CE" by photographer, Northern Qi dynasty clearly ruled in second half of 6th century, and I even put reliable sources which date that stele to 560's. However, he/they are persistent to change all descriptions, despite source which he/they've used as "proof" clearly states dresses from 5th and 6th century are Heptalitian Sogdian, not Turkic.
• File:QizilDonors.jpg - He/They've tried to remove this photo in all Tocharian-related articles claiming that it's "false" and Tocharians are actually "Turks from beginning". You can check it in most upper link I've gave you, but I hope that my comment still stands there because he/they've already tried to remove it.

I've contacted Dougweller regarding to this issue also. Cheers, mr. O. --217.24.133.219 (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Beside the fact that we are Germans: Again, calm down, nobody claimed that what you have mentioned. And nobody is a Turanist here.

• File:SogdiansNorthernQiStellae550CE.jpg - It's not Heptalitian, it's Sogdian. Please don't manipulate again with a wrong source, which does not exist.

• File:QizilDonors.jpg - The point is that the picture has nothing to do with Tocharians, nothing more.

This is consensus in every case. Please stop vandalism, persian nationalism and using 2 IP's for it 217.24.133.219///109.165.161.93.

Tirgil34 is right. You were warned many times on the talk pages. With the next revert we will report you. Making false suspicion on Dbachmann's talk page does not help you anyway. We have warned you on the talk pages: 1, 2, 3.

Regarding the removal of a part of your comment, my answer was: "This is Talk:Tocharian languages not Talk:Sogdiana". Maikolaser (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2012 (CET)

Yeah, Tirgil34 has a long history of pushing Turanist nonsense. So please ban them already, they have had their fair chance to edit responsibly. If Tigril34 is a German, I must assume he (hardly "she") is not just a German so much as a "German", or else I would be at a loss to explain the obsession with Pan-Turkism. A German would hardly declare he is a Defender of the good old German Neutrality. Tigril34 is just adding insult to injury by taking the piss out of his host nation.

This doesn't go to say that matters stand better in the Persian nationalist camp, these guys form a regular wikimafia and their own nationalist nonsense for some reason cannot be touched or they make mincemeat of you. So far we have been able to deal with the Turanist trolls more or less efficiently. One kind of misbehaviour does not excuse another, but if you look at the Cyrus cylinder fuckfest, you will agree that Wikipedia has more pressing problems with the Persian cranks than with the Turkish ones. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is to notify you of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34 of that user. --Cold Season (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see I was proved right again. :) Since I'm well informed about pseudo-history from SW Asian area I'll continue to inform you or Doug if I see something suspicious (last time it was this [6]) as I promised 3 years ago. Cheers, mr. banned O. --109.165.253.255 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, another IP AGAIN? man man man, du kannst es einfach nicht lassen. --Tirgil34 (talk) 23:30, 2. April 2012 (CET)

We are still too lenient with this type of editor. It has always been crystal clear that Tirgil34 is not editing constructively, or in the interest of the project. Hence he should have been warned in no uncertain terms, and then banned. But we are getting there. By comparison to the drawn-out dramas of the past over such editors, this has been comparatively painless. --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Polytonic

Hi Dbachmann, I noticed that quite a while ago you changed {{Polytonic}} from invoking a specific style declaration regarding font-families to simply transcluding the regular lang template with grc defined. Does this mean that {{lang|grc|word}} is now identical to the polytonic template? And does this also mean that {{lang-grc|word}} is now technically identical to the polytonic template, save for the fact it would also give "Ancient Greek:"? We have a guideline that still recommends {{Polytonic}}, though confusingly alongside a recommendation for using {{lang|grc|word}}. I assume that this dual recommendation stems from the days when polytonic forced fonts that were know to be capable of displaying complex diacritics. Thank you, — cardiff | chestnut — 22:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is my understaniding that {{polytonic}} dates from a time when Unicode was new and problematic. No recent system should have any problem displaying polytonic Greek, and it is enough to just use {{lang}} to mark the language as 'grc'. The recommendation for using {{polytonic}} in my view is obsolete, but as long as it is just an alias of {{lang|grc|}}, no harm is done. --dab (𒁳) 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the info. — cardiff | chestnut — 18:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Homer infobox

Template:Homer infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)