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 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 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Rajendra Prasad

Mr.Bachman

I was aware that this page had been vanadalised but just notioced teh extent of vandalisation.I have corrected one bit but thought I should alert you as an administrator.Regards(Venkat Radhakrishnan (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

ANI / RfC

Started by Rokus: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dbachmann. - Merzbow 06:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann on WP:CIVIL and on dodging the issue:

will those who don't spend time around nationalists and supremacists of various descriptions please not throw the first stone here sums it up nicely. If I show frustration, it is frustration over the difficulty of enforcing basic Wikipedia core policy these days. "Uninvolved Admins" should flock to my aid rather than chatting about perceptions of "rudeness". A pov-pusher is a pov-pusher. Of course they will cry "admin abuse", "rudeness", "WP:CIVIL" if they are called pov-pushers, what are people expecting? I am well capable of "writing for the enemy" and ignoring my own views in the interest of encyclopedicity. WP:CIVIL means that you shouldn't shout abuse at people. It doesn't mean you have to waste time flattering people who have obviously no interest in adhering to policy. WP:CIVIL appears to have become mainly a red herring for trolls to hide behind these days. I fully believe in keeping things impersonal and detached, even curt. To go forum-shopping and wikilawyering over "civility" when you find that you have no case in terms of content is disingenious, and has been tolerated far too much. I am here for encyclopedic content, and I expect to interact with people who are here for encyclopedic content. I am willing to invest time in bona fide debate, but I have simply no interest in prancing around over anything else: I have seen far to many pov-pushers come and go with zero result except for time wasted over the years. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[...]

Please note that as per discussion at WP:ANI, a formal RfC has been created regarding your user behavior. It can be found here: [1].---- Ramdrake (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

that's the correct way to go, I suppose. I have nothing to add to what I say above. If anyone wants me, I'll be writing encyclopedia articles. Let me know when you have something to say on content. dab (𒁳) 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick / Relata refero

From User talk:Relata refero

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, you seriously need to learn to stop throwing your weight around like that. The edit in question itself was most problematic. In my book, you have a propensity for wheel warring. I asked you to take the problem you had with Moreschi's admin measures to AN. You refused, preferring to stage a pathetic show of admin infighting. Now you go around branding me as a "borderline troll" because I dared draw attention to your problematic behaviour, and now you end up bullying completely uninvolved users who thought that I had a point. Where do you think you are headed with an attitude like that? Please accept that if you feel you are being abused or "personally" attacked, especially by one of your fellow admins, you are to take the matter to another admin, ideally AN/I and ask for wider input. You need to accept that you are not a law unto yourself around here, and that it may be possible, unbelievable as it may strike you, to honestly disagree with your autocratic approach to adminship. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bachmann, it appears that your comments are specious and unkind.

• The comment might have been problematic, but that is your point of view. You cannot make comments that can be perceived as personal attacks. Your specific reference to me, on a noticeboard, was a personal and offensive remark. The link to the diff was removed without actually altering your original comments.
• You do not seem to have a good grasp of what wheel-warring is, and seem to equate the term to editing and removal of offensive messages against other contributors. You are advised to please review the WP:WHEEL policy on Wikipedia. You will see it strictly refers to "admin actions" and not editing actions. In any case, it is also advised that you review what disruptive editing and edit-warring mean. In the present circumstances, it is strongly recommended that you consider owning up your administrative tools.
• You were never referred to as a borderline troll, please read the comments (summary) properly.
• The messages contained on your talk page and mine make it plausible for every user on the encyclopedia to deduce who is more problematic.
• Yours sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• • indeed. I did not expect we were going to talk at eye level. Just take your issues to AN/I in the future. Yes, I get into edit disputes sometimes. Try keeping some order in nationalism related articles some time and see how it goes. None of the disputes you see on this talkpage are related to any admin actions of mine, or about throwing around my weight as an admin. I consider my self a contributor to encyclopedia articles who also has admin buttons to deal with the odd janitorial task. I do not consider myself chief of a petty dukedom and try getting kicks from bullying the peons. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, he has a point about your talkpage, dab. Perhaps you should refuse to carry on conversations on your talkpage that might cast you in a bad light, and archive everything away regularly. It would certainly mean you're on a level playing field in terms of the comparison he speaks of!

About wheel-warring, It's interesting: I would suppose that indicating that informal guidelines had been laid down for editing on the basis of which administrative powers would be used is perhaps an administrative action, but I suppose it is debatable. Relata refero (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to blank your talkpage. I will archive this page soon due to length, but I do not think anything on it casts me in a bad light, except for the 3RRvio, and this was the first time I slipped into policy violation via a complex revert in over three years. No, I may get my hands dirty as an editor, as compared to the "IRC adminhood" who cannot for the life of them judge on encyclopedicity but who nevertheless feel they are the cream of the project. I am most judicious about using my admin buttons in disputes, and this does compare favourably to people like "Sir Nicholas" who resort to block threats as soon as somebody dares to withold the admiring praise they think they deserve. I also know when it is futile to pursue a discussion. We know RfA is broken, we know that it has produced the "IRC caste" of admins who perceive Wikipedia as a power game and a popularity contests. Unsavoury encounters like this one are only a corollary, and I cannot aim at embarking on the major crusade that would be necessary to confront this problem. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've often thought that RfA's need to have a lower threshold for acceptance, especially since it means that editors who get their hands dirty will never become admins. I hardly ever vote in an RfA except when I really don't want the person getting in, and I suppose that's true of most people. Relata refero (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to nominate you for adminship if you like. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush's comment on separation of church and state

Hi, it's me again. After the last edit controversy at Lords of Chaos (book) I had decided to stay away from articles about fascism for some time, because I wouldn't be able to stand another issue like this. Since then I didn't get into much controversy, so I actually continued with the debate at Neo-fascism and Religion. Anyway, another issue has arisen, and this time I am thinking even more seriously of just quitting Wikipedia or intentionally breaking 3RR to get mysself banned. I had cleaned up the contemporary section of Historical Persecution by Christians and moved one sentence from there to Separation of church and state in the United States. It is about George H. W. Bush, who is supposed to have said: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." I expanded this slightly, the last revision can be found in this revision, bottom section. However, two other editors are of the opinion that it shouldn't be included in the article. They want to move this to American Atheists, but I did not just cleanup one POV Fork to create another. They won't even allow the time for a discussion, although in this case I think I have shown the intention to compromise. I should probably really care less, but this is not a complex scholarly discussion, but a simple question whether the debate about a statement that an American president allegdly made about an issue is notable enough to be mentione the respective article. If Wikipidia is not able to sort this out, there would no be much point in editing, would it? I would really appreciate your advise, best regards, Zara1709 (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to support a brief discussion of the statement in Separation of church and state in the United States. But there is room for debate, of course. It isn't right for these other editors to refuse to debate the question, but most importanly, you should try not to care enough about details like this to consider quitting Wikipedia over them. There are good reasons to quit Wikipedia, but such quibbles are really just business as usual. Keep in mind that Wikipedia can be edited by absolutely everyone, so what do you expect... This is both Wikipedia's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. We are here to get as much out of the strength part as we can while being bogged down by the weakness part as little as possible. That's not always working out, but it often is. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess, you are right, but I am just to much of an Either/Or person. Cleaning up that Bush issue wasn't that hard, although I still don't understand why someone who is familiar with Wikipedia would rather head for an edit war instead of searching a few additional sources himself. But having your talk page on my watchlist I realised that edtiting Wikipedia could be even much more controversial. Have you actually counted how many RFCs are there about you? I haven't taken the time to look at them closely, but they seem to be unjustified.

In any case, I will have to limit myself to a few hours a week for editing Wikipedia. Where I currently am, the exams are coming up, and since I am taking them in French, participating in prolonged discussions on the English Wikipedia is not particularly helpful. Zara1709 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

sure, WP can be and is edited by "complete maniacs" (see Jimbo Wales quote below) as well as by the infantile, spiteful, confused and the just bloody stupid. Once these realize they can't just have their way and that there are (gasp) rules, of course they try to bend the rules and just generally try to keep complaining and sounding victimized until people give up in disgust. I am amazed how many people apply this strategy in real life on a daily basis (just be an asshole consistently, and people will give you what you want eventually), and you can't expect them to do any better online. In my book, this betrays a flaw in upbringing: healthy individuals shed this sort of behaviour at about six years of age. But since this is an imperfect world, those of us who are mentally adult end up pulling the weights of those who aren't. dab (𒁳) 12:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore edits

Hey, Dab, I thought I would give you a heads-up about a comment I posted in Talk:Albus Dumbledore. Following up on a comment by another user, it appears that you posted an apparent connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. I read and re-read your successive postings before and after it, to see if perhaps there was some incredibly wry wit intended. I must confess that I am at a loss as to find it, if it were intended. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not connected, and I think you might wish to return to the talk page in question, tender an apology and strike through the offending text. You may not have intended to offend others with your comment, but offended they were. I'm not gay, but i must confess that I, found your comment not only wrong, but categorically inappropriate. Could I get you to address the comment right away, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

great, it appears I have perpetrated another political uncorrectness. Please give me a break:

• I have immediately qualified the remark as inconsequential to the debate. I do not want to elaborate on it
• My mention of pedophilia was motivated by the "special" relationship of Dumbledore and Harry Potter specifically, not by any musings on a connection of homosexuality and pedophilia in general.
• I have commented on the question before in a context that was actually pertinent, viz. here and here. Anyone interested in my thoughts on the matter will find all I have to say on it there, without my needing to repeat myself. They will specifically find that I have actively counteracted attempts at gay-bashing by MoritzB (talk · contribs) et al., even though I had to conclude that the blanket statement "Homosexuality and pedophilia are not connected" is not tenable without qualification. For your convenience, I repeat my concluding remarks:

  All that Blanchard's study says is that a certain fraction of pedophiles prefer boys, and that this fraction is higher than the average percentage of gays in society. That's it. Now this can be abused for anti-gay progaganda, and we don't want that, but it is not, in itself, anti-gay. [...] this is a study on pedophiles, not on homosexuals. MoritzB quoted other studies that say incidence of pedophilia is about twice as high among homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. I don't know if the study is reliable, because the "anti-anti-gay vigilance" on Wikipedia have campaigned to remove the reference rather than citing criticism. Now look, it is still true in any case that "no evidence is available from this data that children are at greater risk to be molested by identifiable homosexuals than by other adults". Why? Because only 10% of child molesters are also homosexuals. From the pov of the victim, your chances are 90% that your molester is a hetero. Since there are only about 5% homosexuals in society at large, that might calculate to a 100% higher incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals. See what you can do with statistics? "no evidence that children are at greater risk to be molested by identifiable homosexuals" and "homosexuals are twice as likely to be child molesters" are both true statements according to these statistics, they are just given different spins. The anti-anti-gay brigade would do well to combat the spin, and not bona fide discussion of academic studies. I might add that they could do the combatting with a little more decorum and less hysteria.

• I do not intend to discuss the topic any further. I am not an expert, and I have no particular interest in the topic.

dab (𒁳) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, if you are not an expert, you shouldn't be commenting on the subject matter, even in an attempt at humor. Your previous actions in stopping gay-bashing aside, your comments were not taken in the context that you intended, and were in fact viewed by two different editors with nothing else in common except for the wonderment that you would say such a thing.

At the very least, you should address the comment, as it did not achieve the apparent Bag O' Clever you were shopping for. While I am assuming good faith on your part, qualifying your remark as "inconsequential" doesn't resolve or conclude the matter, which I can foresee escalating unless you take immediate action to address it. You need to clearly state that you - at best - were writing tongue-in-cheek commentary (at worst, you made a tremendous faux pas or are a creep that needs to be shown the door - personally, I don't believe the latter).

Lastly, using Blanchard's study to defend your statement doesn't help your cause here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

are you an expert? I am not an expert, but I have made the effort to review academic studies on the topic. I give a full explanation of my comments right above, including context pointers to further research you were not even asking for. I have no idea what is supposed to be "creepy" about my comment, or how you can ask me to "address" my comment when I have just done so, or what my faux pas is supposed to consist of. I beg to submit that I consider it a "tremendous faux pas", if not a blatant personal attack, on the part of I do not exist (talk · contribs) to allege that I implied "all gays are pedophiles" when I have never done anything remotely like that. But I have no interest in seeking sanctions or otherwise pursuing the case. My position towards the question of the general relation of homosexuality and pedophilia, which is completely unrelated to my original comment, is laid out above. Precisely because I am not an expert and have no vested interest, my opinion is entirely based on academic studies by experts. I must conclude that you did not pay attention to what I write above. Please read it. I am not "using using Blanchard's study to defend my statement". The fictional relation of (sigh) Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore has nothing whatsoever to do with real-life studies of pedophilia. Ok? I could write an analysis of how Dumbledore's erratic behaviour towards Harry Potter, which repeatedly caused confusion and cast doubt on Dumbledore's feelings and character (it's in the text), will appear in a very different light if viewed on the premise of Dumbledore's homosexuality. This would be a case study, and a fictional case at that, and not any comment on pedophilia in general as "I do not exist" would like to allege. And I will not write such an analysis, because (a) it would be original research and (b) I am not too fond of Rowling and have better things to do than to write essays on books that I don't really like. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

"There is nothing in HP to suggest Dumbledore is gay (indeed, the implication opens up creepy scenarios of pedophilia, but this is beside the point..."

I would submit that the "creepy scenario" connecting homosexuality and pedophilia was inadvertantly introduced by yourself, likely making a wry aside at another discussion, and you were essentially making the comparison that JKR noting Dumbledore's homosexuality was going to likely bring in those who would now make pedophilic connections. I am not saying you are one of these pathetic bags of SpringerMeat, Dab. I am saying that your edit was rather poorly crafted, and should be addressed in a proactive way. If it was not your intention to make that connection, it would seem in your best interest to fix the problem rather than argue your (or other folks') intentions. I assure you that my intentions in this matter are not to witchhunt, but merely to fix the problem; you are an admin, recognize that you've made a slight mistake and take steps to correct it, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. I find it in violation of NPOV to refer to those who propose a statistical correlation of homosexuality and pedophilia as "pathetic bags of SpringerMeat". This is the attitude I describe as "hysterical" above. But you are right that I, myself, do not propose such a hypothesis, although I am aware of its existence. My comment was indeed intended to gesture towards the near unavoidable event that people will make the connection, and I personally judge that Rowling's statement was ill-advised in the light of this. My comment expresses this and nothing else, and I fully stand by its wording. I resent attempts to twist my comments into something they do not say. I cannot "fix the problem" if people go out of their way to take offense. I appreciate your good faith in this, but unfortunately I must say I find you rather inflate the problem instead of helping to "fix" it. I am willing to apologize even for unintended offense I cause, but there are certain limits to empathy into reasonable cause for offense. I repeat that I do hold myself the insulted party in this, and that furthermore I have no desire to harp on it. I am not prepared to discuss on the level of "pathetic bags of SpringerMeat" and similar niceties. My actual take on the topics involved is now laid out here for anyone interested, and I trust that anyone taking the trouble to review it will go away reassured that I am neither a "creep" nor a "pathetic meatbag". I do not propose to do anything beyond that. dab (𒁳) 13:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I apologize for my misunderstanding. I overreacted, and I'm sorry. - ∅ (∅), 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

that's very kind of you. On my part, let me apologize for any inadvertent offense I may have caused you. dab (𒁳) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, are you assuming that I'm calling you a "pathetic bags of SpringerMeat"? LOL! Not at all! Wow, when you go on the defensive, you go all out. I was referring to the anti-gay propoganda using the arguable connection that Blanchard referred to in the quote you provided. I certainly didn't count you amongst them. If I felt at all that you were that way, I wouldn't have bothered doing more than simply notifying you of an impending AN/I. Since I did not feel that you were like this, i wrote to you to let you know that some editors (three at last count) found the comment odd, and that you might want to nip the potential problem in the bud. nothing more. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming no such thing. You seriously need to learn to pay attention more closely if you take it upon yourself to play mediator. Can we lay this to rest now? I think all that needed saying has been said now. dab (𒁳) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Greece

Dear Dbachmann. Thanks for your attempts to straighten out Ancient Greece. As you may have ssen from the talk page, some of us are pondering to substantially rewrite that article, which remains rather poor. Would you have an interest in such a venture? To be entirely honst with you, I am not convinced that your strict century-by-century order is necessarily the non plus ultra, as it may fragment history to some extent, but I think that it's the best thing that can be done for the moment.

Question: Is it desirable for the article to be predominantly a historical summary? Next, should separate cultural aspects, like art, philosophy, literature, architecture (et c) be kept as separate sections, or be integrated with the general chronological text. I'm not asking suggestively, as I am quite unsure. athinaios (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree: my edits were optimized towards optimal benefit with minimal investment. The article does, as you say, remain comparatively poor. I do encourage you to invest effort in a substantial rewrite, but please keep in mind that we aim at a Wikipedia:Summary style article. Whatever you do, your rewrite should not feature lengthy prose paragraphs, just concise pointers to {{main}} articles. dab (𒁳) 16:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That one's a keeper

[2] Shamelessly stolen for my user page. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: we educate the world (one clueless choleric teenage nationalist at a time). :) dab (𒁳) 19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pelasgians

Would you care to do the honors in terms of fixing the "paragraph" supposedly supporting an Albanian-Pelasgian connection? I have a strange feeling that if either Tsourkpk or myself were to follow through with your critical review, then Taulant23 and other Albanian users might conduct more revert-wars under the guise of fending off "vandalism" and "Greek nationalism." In order to avoid such a possibility, I think it would be best if you fixed the "paragraph" since you have a more neutral approach towards solving this overall issue (plus it was your idea in the first place to break apart the "paragraph"). Overall, both Tsourkpk and myself agree with your critical review of the "paragraph" and would like for this dispute to end once and for all. Thank you for all of your help. Good luck in all of your endeavors. Deucalionite (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanian-Pelasgian connection it's to strong to be deleted nor to be one "theoretical connection". It's pathetic to pretend that this link is weak, in my opinion, deleting is uneducated, nationalistic, another Greek propaganda!--Taulant23 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Albanian-Pelasgian connection is so strong, then why isn't there any direct literary and archaeological evidence to support it? I am beginning to think that everything that does not coincide with your views Taulant23 is considered "Greek propaganda" to you. I think you are just upset because there is direct evidence supporting a Greek-Pelasgian connection while your endeavors have produced nothing substantial to support an Albanian-Pelasgian connection. I told you before that you need direct physical evidence in order to prove your case. I explained it to you in a very nice and respectful manner, and you still continue promoting questionable content onto articles. Even though I at first supported the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section, there is no denying the fact that other users are not convinced by its contents since there is a significant lack of reliable scientific evidence. Please reconsider your stance my friend because sooner or later your actions will force other users to not want to speak to you at all. Deucalionite (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Taulant23 is required to strictly adhere to WP:RS and WP:TALK if he wants to oblige other editors to even consider his stuff. Taulant23, go to these pages and study them on your own time, like a grown-up. People will not hold your hand while you reluctantly wrap your mind around them. Then come back with a solidly referenced paragraph in brilliant English. Wikipedia isn't free highschool tutoring for internet junkies. Deliver quality or be ignored. dab (𒁳) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. By the way, are you going to take care of the "paragraph" or should Tsourkpk go ahead and do it? This issue is getting out of hand and Pirro Burri just decided to racially discriminate all Greeks who do not support the Albanian-Pelasgian connection. Best regards. Deucalionite (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

don't be so delicate :oP "Pelasgian" isn't even a well-defined term,. All we know about Pelasgian is that it had words in -issa and -inthos. So, it is a patently empty claim to postulate an "Albanian-Pelasgian" connection. Pure Obscurum per obscurius (aka antiquity frenzy), not worth the excitement. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about being delicate? I understand that this whole issue is really not worth getting excited over. However, even you would agree that the nonsense associated with this specific non-issue has to stop before it gets worse. Nevertheless, I need to know whether or not you will follow through with your critical review of the "paragraph" (a "yes" or "no" answer would be nice). That's all. Regardless if the term "Pelasgian" is ill-defined (not surprising since the Pelasgians were not a perfectly unified unit), the Pelasgians article does not need unnecessary loose-ends. Deucalionite (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I do invite you to go ahead with the article along the lines discussed on the talkpage, you don't need to ask for my permission. Regarding this BURRI character, if he spouts more racialist nonsense, he'll just be blocked, no sweat, let's not be distracted by trolls. --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. I asked for your permission since it was your idea in the first place to break apart the "paragraph." Hey, I'm just giving credit where credit is due. That's all. Again, thanks for all your help. Bye. Deucalionite (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic Traditions revived as Indian Religion

Humming bird is playinga Havoc on Indian religions which he has redirected to Dharmic traditions.--Anish (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

he is reallly fishing for a block this time... dab (𒁳) 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya but check out this !!! This Dharmic (T)radition(s) is becoming a mess. By playing around with the capital letters and singular/ Plural wordings they have created following 3 articles to stick with their pet POV's. :

• Dharmic tradition - Disambig page
• Dharmic Tradition - Redirects to Indian religions#Common traits
• Dharmic Traditions - Redirects to Dharma

I think the consensus was reached on the first one. Something needs to be done on this one.--Anish (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, this is confusing. All the capitalisation variants should redirect to the dab page. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Nutcase

Another nutcase has vandalised Dharmic tradition. I suggest you protect the Disambig page for some time.--Anish (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lurs.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lurs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mushroom (Talk) 08:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Index lists

Howdy. (Once more unto the breach.. ;) I was wondering if you could take a look at my hefty draft-summary at Wikipedia:Lists/Index lists. I'd appreciate your thoughts on:

• what the best way to discuss it is. (I'm currently planning on posting it at WP:VPP, and notifying everyone relevant I can find)
• how the draft could be improved or made clearer.
• and your initial thoughts on the issue itself, before I put it in front of a wider audience.

Much thanks. (reply wherever, I watchlist) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've removed the new-namespace-proposal thread, as it was only serving to distract (thanks to Francis' smart comments). I invite you to refactor your last sentence ("... either to Portal:, or to a newly defined Index: or Contents: namespace."), to eliminate mention of it, in order to keep things short/clear, so that I can post the entire thread to VPP. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thread moved to the Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Turco-Mongol

Hi, is it possible for me to learn why you redirected the article Turco-Mongol to Altaic peoples? Of course, Turco-Mongols were Altaic as well, but the term refers to a specific society during the Middle Ages rather than a general identification. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• does it? Do you mean the Mongol Empire? All the more need for disambiguation. I am not sure about the "specific society" though. The "References" given just point to casual usage of "Turco-Mongol" in the context of the Mongolian Empire. The basic meaning is "Turkic and Mongolic". If there are, indeed, more specific meanings, this should by all means be mentioned on the disambiguation page. The important thing is that the page is a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mongol Empire and the sequel, including the Golden Horde and Timurid eras. I scanned the sources once again, what I can see is that they refer to specific eras rather than a generalization. And of course I should state that Altaic peoples do not solely consist of Turks and Mongols, so the term Turco-Mongol cannot be an equivalent of Altaic. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are also 63,000 Tungusic people. No, your references just say that the Mongol Empire happened to consist of both Turkic and Mongol tribes, they do not say that "Turko-Mongol" has a meaning of "medieval Mongol Empire" in particular. The "references" given are obviously just the result of a google books search for the term. If you insist, Turco-Mongol can be a disambiguation page separate from Altaic peoples, but I really fail to see a point in that since both will be practically identical in scope. dab (𒁳) 21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The number is not important. The fact is that the term Turco-Mongol does not suffice to correspond the term Altaic. But, I think you have right at one point. I gazed on the references once more. Even if the sources are based on specific eras, the related term is likely to be used as a general one. So, your last suggestion seems comfortable to me. Then, the disambiguation page you prepared is ok. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do specifically mention the term (and the "Turco-Mongol Empire") at Altaic peoples now. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 21:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. Just a quick request. It would be great if you could use the edit summary more often in your edits, especially more subtle ones, when you do redirects (need to explain why), and propose merges. Things can indeed be seen from the diff, but having an edit summary on one's watchlist can be very informative nevertheless. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

you are right. But I often have a complicated queue of edits to do in my head, with lots of open browser tabs, and I type tab-enter habitually for edits I deem uncontroversial. When I am aware that my edit may raise eyebrows, I always give a summary. But I accept your criticism. Especially when editing an article where I am not "known" to people watching, I should take more time to give a courtesy summary. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

I won't spam you with a bunch of code or pictures, just a simple thank you for your kind words and participation in my RfA. Thank you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Development of religion

I think that some of the material in Development of religion/Origins of religion is better suited in the article Theories of religion.

See my first try User:Andries/Theories_of_religion. I could use some help from you for that article if you have time.

Andries (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

looks good. Should perhaps be singular theory of religion per MoS, but this definitely has potential. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mithraic Mysteries

Hi. can you take a look at this article? I thought your edits on the now defunct Mithras article where fair, but our friend User:Fullstop is up to his old tricks again— this is the third time I've have to contact an administrator to deal with him. Thanks in advance. Fennessy (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Explaining the bot's behaviour

See here. The bot was worried about not being able to find a link back to the article (it fails to recognise redirects left behind by moves). The bot wasn't judging the rationale - they are not that clever yet. A similar case (missing colon after move), can be seen here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm currently reading "Inside Language - Linguistic and Aesthetic Theory in Tolkien" by Ross Smith, and in the series editor's preface, Honegger refers to the following 2006 paper: Dieter Bachmann and Thomas Honegger, "Ein Mythos fur das 20. Jahrhundert: Blut, Rasse und Erbgedachtnis bei Tolkien." Hither Shore 2:13-39. Is that you by any chance? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure the bot can be taught to just leave alone any image tagged with {{Non-free book cover}}. Yes, I co-authored that article. I was going to resurrect Tolkien and racism (deleted as OR last year) some time, and perhaps work on genetic memory, but I am spending far too much time on-wiki as it is. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

More advice

Okay, here's the thing 'Bachmann, your comment may have been in response to some serious trolling, I'm not even going to argue about that, cus I don't even KNOW, but your response is not hitting your mark. Okay? You end up lumping a lot of other people in, who aren't bad, and who don't live in "shit-holes" in to your attacks. You did the same thing with the Afrocentrism article. The way I see it, man, you're mostly making the right calls... but, the things you say and the way you come across ends up pissing off a whole lot of other people who just don't deserve it. Think about that. And then you end up with everyone against you, doing RfCs on your ass and complaining. Why not just avoid all that? Be a big man! Admit what you did wrong and defend what you did right. It's OK to admit that you overstepped the line a bit, you know? And if you really think it's OK to be racist then, I don't know, maybe you should think about that. It's not like the trolls "win" if you do that, in fact, the trolls are winning right now because with the way you attack people everyone feels sorry for them. I'm saying you've gotta keep the upper hand. I'm really trying to help you, man, but if you want to just blow me off... OK. Whatever. (And please don't move this off your user page, I want people to know that someone is trying to reach out to you and be nice about all of this. OK? So don't move it. I'm watchin' your page to see if you get any of this.) JJJamal (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

fine. How about you show your qualities in producing quality edits instead of lecturing me, and we'll get along just fine. I have not attacked anyone. I have no idea why you want to discuss a trolling incident dating to 2005 with me. I frankly have no idea what you want from me. You know what? I have been known to be very quick to apologize to people whom I gave cause for offence. I will not apologize to random people who go out of their way to find some political incorrectness in my edits because they find they have no case in an on-topic debate. I'll tell you something else: I resent the implication that I am a racist, when I am in fact one of the most active editors combatting racism on Wikipedia. If I was as much into bitching at people over offense taken, I would now pester you for the next three years or so to take that back. So, if you want to be "nice", you have a chance to apologize right now. If you insist that it is "racism" to ask that the same rules apply to everyone on Wikipedia, regardless of their ethnicity (that is: you need to deliver encyclopedicity, even if you insist that you are "ethnic" and thus the rules magically don't apply to you), I am happy to let you cherish your belief and be happy with whatever it is you are doing, but I would just ask you to stop posting to my talkpage, because you really have nothing to say I would want to hear. I am not interested in having general ethical or philosophical discussions with anyone happens to stumble on my talkpage and chats me up, pulling out random disputes of three years ago with which they have no involvement, and no background knowledge, whatsoever, even if they don't insult me first. I am nonplussed that you apparently think your elaborations are in any way useful or constructive. I'll assume good faith, but I am afraid that sufficiently advanced naiveté is truly indistinguishable from trolling, so I have no way of knowing which applies to you. This isn't relevant, since I am interested in neither. dab (𒁳) 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you will respond

In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration. WP:RFC

futurebird (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the page yet. You are right that people usually defend themselves in RfC's. I have defended myself against this sort of stuff many times over, and I consider it a waste of time to invest time in stating again what people can just read up in my talk archive. But I will certainly leave a note to that effect on the RfC page once I get around to have a look at it. People are of course free to submit anything they like to arbitration. I am not aware I am in breach of any policy. No, not even the famous WP:CIVIL if that is tempered by WP:UCS (as opposed to waved around as a red herring). I am dedicated to uphold high standards of encyclopedicity precisely in line with policy. If people don't like my tone or my character, I daresay I can say the same of countless accounts without spending time wikilawyering about it. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked it now. Wow. Quite a lot of nasty insults and character smearing. If I believed in whining about WP:CIVIL, I could go on for pages about it. I might consider asking for blanking of this page after closure due to calculated character assassination. So, futurebird, have fun in Bakaman's team, I suppose. If you should wish to resume encyclopedic editing, I'll still be here. But you can't side with Bakaman's "tag, you're an obnoxious racist" approach (why hasn't anyone permabanned this guy yet?) and expect me to take you seriously as an editor at the same time. dab (𒁳) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem in your lunar phases template?

Greetings, Dbachmann. I should like to congratulate you on a most beautiful and extremely useful template (I generally do not use the word "cool", or else I would have). I am referring, of course, to your lunar phases indicator. I would even add it to one of my user pages, but there is no suitable space for it yet. In any case, the main reason I am leaving this message is the possibility of a problem in this page—the bold red letters do not look like they are there for a decorative purpose. I thought that you might want to fix whatever is wrong with it.

Keep it up! Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 09:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

well, yes, you are not supposed to transclude User:Dbachmann/moon1, you are supposed to transculde User:Dbachmann/moon, which in turn transcludes the moon1 one. Please note that the percentage given is very inaccurate ("0th order perturbation" -- i.e. none at all, the moon is assumed to just go around in a circle. I'll try to improve this some time). dab (𒁳) 10:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I had already realised that; exactly because User:Dbachmann/moon1 is transcluded in User:Dbachmann/moon, I thought that any problems with the former might also affect the latter. In any case, any improvement that is performed on the template is for the best. I would help you, but I know very little about orbits. Is that Newton fellow still alive? You could ask him.

Thank you for your prompt response. Waltham, The Duke of 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

it's not a problem. moon1 takes an argument q ("quarter"): {{User:Dbachmann/moon1|q=1}} means "1st quarter" (50% phase). I just separated "calculation" and display in two templates, so that if you do a smarter calculation formula, you can still link it to the display template. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If it produces a better result, it is acceptable. This is a general rule in Wikipedia. That is, until someone somehow manages to crash the servers. :-) In any case, it has been nice meeting you.

By the way, would you be, by any chance, interested in joining WikiProject Succession Box Standardization? We are severely understaffed, and thus I grab every chance I get to try and recruit people. It is nothing personal, I assure you. Waltham, The Duke of 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

at the moment I have enough (rather, too much) on my hands, but I am making a mental note to look into it. dab (𒁳) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. It is quite interesting, you know, for people interested in templates, categorisation, history, and not only. And you get to do a lot of (article) travelling. I know I have. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 10:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation debate

Are you still involved in this discussion? Ilkali (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I have conclusively addressed the question. I could repeat the same points over and over, but I don't see why I should. dab (𒁳) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, dab: I've taken it upon myself to move forward with reporting Ilkali's behavior on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I hope this was the right thing to do. Apparently this is a recurring pattern that has resulted in blockages and page lockdowns in the past. Craig zimmerman 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For trying to inject a bit of neutrality and common sense into some of the murkier areas of Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this makes you evil in the eyes of Wikipedians of the Zapp Brannigan persuasion. As the great man himself pondered: "What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Plus, as an admin, you really should be spending more time with your colleagues on the truly essential matters [3]. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks Folantin, I will display this barnstar with particular pride (this should be the "Armed neutrality" barnstar -- neutral but not non-belligerent :p). Although I am shamed that I am not always up-to-date with the latest wheel war scandals among my fellow-admins dab (𒁳) 13:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CEM

Dbachmann, I think we should try community enforceable mediation to resolve the issues raised by the RfC. I'm not really interested in taking about things you said back in 2005, but I do think that there should be some kind of resolution to this process as myself and others are not satisfied with the RfC. (See the comments on the RfC talk page) Are you willing to try this? futurebird 16:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of "CEM". Futurebird, it is very simple: I am not aware you and I are in a content dispute at this moment. To the contrary, I think your contributions are generally quite good. If you have an issue of content to bring up, pray do so and I will reply. If you have an issue related to my "conduct" concerning you, bring it up and I will reply. I do not care if you communicate with me directly or via a "mediator", my replies will be identical. I will not discuss past disputes with random third parties, because that would mean there is no upper limit of the time I may be forced to invest just to repeat myself. If you are interested in the 2005 Rajput dispute, review my talk archives (good places to start are here, here and here), and the relevant article histories. I intend to maximize my wiki time invested in producing encyclopedic content, and will consequently aim to minimize the time I spend wikilawyering, forum-shopping or prancing around with problem users such as deeceevoice (I have said so already on the rfc page, and you are making me repeat myself even now). If you are for some reason not satisfied with my reply and think I should be chastised for some reason or other, feel free to file an arbitration case. dab (𒁳) 16:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you really responded to the concerns that I raised at the RfC, so I won't repeat the comments I made there here again. That's why there is still a dispute (in my eyes). Even in your response to me just now you've been unnecessarily rude and dismissive by implying that I'm just "wikilawyering, forum-shopping or prancing around with problem users such as deeceevoice" Calling someone a "problem user" is rude, accusing me of "forum shopping" is unfair, and in general you're not taking my concerns seriously and just see my concerns as "wikilawyering" and that is hurtful. If you raised similar issues with me I would not try to put all of the blame on others, I would listen and consider what you were saying and try to find a compromise. That is all that I'm asking. futurebird 16:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

futurebird, I appreciate our approaches on how to interact with other people, in particular wrt "political correctness" differ greatly. I can accept this. I am not asking you to like me. You are misinterpreting my reply. I did not allege anything regarding your behaviour, beyond that I think your contributions are fair. I was saying that I avoid forum-shopping and wikilawyering, in order to explain my restricting to a bare minimum my reaction to the RfC on what I consider a non-issue. You, of course, are free to spend your time on Wikipedia on whatever you like. The point of my answer is, I have no wish for prolongued debates over perceived "rudeness". Wikipedia isn't a social network. WP:CIVL in my book means, don't shout obscenities at people, don't bitch at them, respect their general outlook as long as they don't disrupt the project. That's it. Regarding all and any content issues, I believe in WP:SPADE: if an edit is bullshit, I will call bullshit. If an editor is being disruptive, I will call them disruptive (or alternatively "problem editors" or "trolls"). Regarding social networking and friends lists, I am not interested. I would like to be able to collaborate with you amicably, but if this isn't possible, I am just as happy to keep our interaction to a bare minimum necessary to make points about content. thanks, dab (𒁳) 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact the Deeceevoice wasn't even being disruptive, you were. futurebird 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

she has a record of blatant disruption reaching back to 2005, and is under arbcom enforced probation. Any credit she may once have had must have run out some time in 2006. This isn't the topic under discussion. You want to stand up for dcv, you are free to do that. I am sure that if I had behaved in anything like dcv's usual hysteria for five minutes, my sorry ass would have been speedily de-adminned, and rightly so. I fully accept that I am being held to higher standards than, again, notorious problem editors. Again, if you feel I should be under arbcom enforced probation due to some disruptive behaviour on my part, file an arbitration case. Alternatively, bring up grievances you may have with me, here on my talkpage. So far, you only seem to complain I am not being chatty enough on "my" RfC. I explained I have no interest in chatting. Is there anything else you would like to bring up? Perhaps something actually pertaining to questions of content? Otherwise I suggest we drop this conversation and go back to our respective pursuits connected with writing an encyclopedia. dab (𒁳) 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how we can collaborate when it seems thatWP:SPADE applies to you but not to me or Deeceevoice. Can I use WP:SPADE? I don't think so. I'd just get banned. futurebird 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. People called me "obnoxious racist" on "my" RfC -- which isn't SPADE but a blatant personal attack, and I don't know anyone got banned over that. You called my behaviour "disruptive" and nobody banned you. DCV's idea of SPADE seems to be the typographical equivalent of assorted animal noises, which is her problem. What on earth do you mean you "would get banned" if you spoke your mind? Conversely, when did I call anyone "obnoxious" or similar niceties? This entire hubbub is due to my calling bullshit at blatant spin doctoring and muddying the issue at Afrocentrism. I didn't insult anyone, I asked people to not insult readers' intelligence. Look, you apparently live in a world so different from mine that we aren't able to communicate on matters like civility or etiquette. I don't care. Our interaction should be restricted to citation of academic literature. If I present some opinion without sourcing it to academic publications, you will be perfectly entitled to object. dab (𒁳) 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have filed a case at arbcom, you can find it here please sign so that they know I notified you. futurebird 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Armenian religion

I think I've read somewhere that Christianization of Armenia is already planned as a separate article. I'm already due to work with Eupator on Cilician Armenia and then Tigranes the Great, so it might be a while before I get round to chipping in there, but I do have some sources. It would be the best place to detail the conversion stories surrounding Saint Gregory and maybe centralise the discussion about the "firstness" of Armenian Christianity. There's also one crucial element missing from the Wikipedia articles I've seen, which is the fact that Tiridates' decision to choose Christianity as the state religion marked a major break with the traditional Iranian cultural influence on Armenia and increased the potential for conflict with the Sassanids (who had recently adopted the Neo-Zoroastrian faith of Mazdaism as their officially sanctioned religion). There's plenty of other things that could go in (the relationship with Syriac Christianity and the influence on the vocabulary of the Armenian language). Might make a substantial article. --Folantin 15:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

sure, Christianization of Armenia can always be expanded into a full article. The redirect is just provisional. There's a lot of interesting material we can discuss there. It's a pity Armenian literature only begins a full century after Christianization, so that most details will probably remain speculative forever. I appreciate that Arsacid Armenia may indeed well have been the first "state" to impose Christianity: the "first" claim isn't without merit at all, it is just slightly misleading. Tiridates III seems to have set a trend indeed: Armenia 314, Aksum 325, Georgia 337, 350s Goths(?), and finally 380 Rome. dab (𒁳) 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's plenty that could fill that article, including the fact that there were already quite a few Armenian converts to Christianity before the 4th century. Incidentally - unrelated to this topic, but related to the Caucasus region - do you know anything about Ossetian mythology? There's already an article on the Narts (heroes), but I was planning to put a simple list of Ossetian deities. I'm no expert on this subject, but I have a few things by way of source material. I've seen you editing articles on Indo-European and other mythologies, so I wondered if it was in your area. Ossetian religion seems like an interesting mixture of Christianity and paganism (rather like some Latin American versions of Catholicism, I presume). --Folantin 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing of the topic. The Ossetians count as the "last Sarmatians" and their folk religion would have a Scytho-Sarmatian substrate, but of course there will be no pre-medieval records. We need a Saint Hetag article (move Wasterzhi?) Category:Scythian and Sarmatian deities, Altaic mythology. dab (𒁳) 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt if there are many pre-19th century records, let alone pre-medieval. Ossetian legends attracted Georges Dumézil, who saw close parallels with Norse mythology (that's just one interpretation, of course). Thanks anyway. I didn't know some of those stubs on Ossetian gods such as Wasterzhi and Wasilla existed. Half the problem is the transliteration - there doesn't seem to be much agreement on how to render Ossetian names in English, so I was looking in the wrong place (my primary source is in French, plus I have some Russian material). I've got an account by a British journalist of a visit to Saint Hetag's Grove near Vladikavkaz in the 1990s. Apparently, it's tremendously popular nowadays. I'll consolidate all my info in one article (Ossetian deities?), then see whether it's worth splitting it or merging the other stuff into it. Cheers. --Folantin 17:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started Scythian religion. This will mostly be based on archaeological evidence. There may be some material in classical ethnography, nevertheless. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ru:Три пирога is an interesting article I was able to locate on ru-wiki. dab (𒁳) 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've started a central article on Ossetian deities. More to come (plus I've got to check I've got the Ossetian names right). The major gods, especially Wasterzhi, can have their own articles, of course. The new article needs putting in the right categories (is it really Asian mythology? Ossetia is just within Europe. On the other hand the religion is supposedly Iranic in origin). I'll check that Russian article out later. Cheers. --Folantin 18:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

this is rather difficult... all the online sources, sch as they are, seem to be in Russian. I am not sure if it wouldn't be wiser to merge this with the Nart article -- there is simply no line that can be drawn between Narts and deities here. dab (𒁳) 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Dumézil (and this is certainly reflected in the stories he translated), the Narts are definitely human heroes (even though they possess many superhuman qualities). They are eventually destroyed by God (Khusaw, I guess) for their presumption. The figures I have called "deities" are more difficult to pin down. They are definitely supernatural, some are more godlike than others, but are often identified with Christian saints. I think it's a problem with terminology. They aren't the same as the Narts though - they're certainly higher-ranking than them and (I assume) immortal. --Folantin 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you've moved it to Ossetian mythology. Good idea. --Folantin 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

see the talkpage, we should even widen the scope to all of the Northern Caucasus -- we cannot treat Circassan folklore etc. as separate from Ossetian. dab (𒁳) 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice Quote...

I ran across this marvelous quote from Jimbo Wales and just wanted to share:

"When I am asked to look into cases of "admin abuse" and I choose to do so, I generally find myself astounded at how nice we are to complete maniacs, and for how long." - Jimbo Wales

Aryaman (☼) 04:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is a wise man. His sly, serene wisdom is a significant factor in Wikipedia's success. dab (𒁳) 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization

Can you please give me hint, to which extent the hypothesis that (Proto-)Dravidan was the language of the Indus Valley Civilization is considered accepted in the scientific community? Out of my layman's knowledge of this topic, I'd judge that language and script of the IVC are still undeciphered and the Dravidan hypothesis has at best minority support. --Pjacobi 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall

Hey D., sorry for the delay getting back to you on this. At this time I have no interest in seeking your recall as admin. As far as I can see, the issues I have with some of your behaviours have little to do with your position as admin. I haven't seen you explicitly misuse your admin position in disputes. I think an argument could be made for your implicit use of the status and power of your admin position as a point of manipulation in editing and content conflicts though. However this is more a perception than something I have any tangible examples of.

More worrisome to me is your insistence at times on inserting what appears to be purely WP:OR information and perspectives into articles. I say OR because you seem unable to produce sources when asked and actually seem to resent anyone asking for sources. My perception (and I make no claim to accuracy in this matter) is that you think references and sourcing is for other editors to do, not you. Because of this, many of your edits lack verifiability beyond your assertions. And because of this, I've seen a number of cases where your additions literally make no sense in the context of the articles. This is, to me, a deeply troubling lack and flaw in an editor as prolific and dedicated as you seem to be. Particularly because you are so prolific and often attempt extensive renovation of articles or groups of related articles, this introduces your OR and unsourced claims into a whole series of articles.

In your comments on my talk page, you said "But it is hardly possible to dispute that the articles I do address end up being improved. This is my single aim, and this is how I measure my success." Unfortunately, my experience/view is that many of the improvements are at least partially a result of the reaction by other editors to your edits, often to correct inaccuracies or POV introduced by you. I don't intend this to be a harsh across-the-boards indictment of your contributions, only that this is my observation of those edits I've witnessed. I don't think of myself as an exceptional or special Wikipedia editor with a unique insight into this matter. My point being: if I see these things in your edits, I suspect I'm not the only one who sees it.

I hadn't really intended to say all this and much of it I've already said to you on another talk page so I doubt it is new info to you. None of this touches on your many good actions on Wikipedia such as your apparent willingness to persistently challenge POV and fringe theory pushers. Please don't take this note as either an attack on you or as wholesale criticism; it is intended to outline some of my concerns about your actions. Pigman☿ 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

well, I can only say that I wholeheartedly endorse WP:NOR and WP:RS, and that I insist on adhering to these to the point of sounding like a broken record. Thus, if you can point out any edit of mine that qualify as OR, I will immediately apologize, and either take them back or provide appropriate references. I am not sure which edits of mine you are talking about. I suspect this surrounds a single unwise edit I did some time back at the CR article? Which I recognized as unwise and didn't try to push on the article as soon as the problem was pointed out to me? If there are other problematic edits of mine you are aware of, I would be obliged if you brought them up. I am, in any case, ever so much more happy to discuss questions of content than to prance around with people musing on abstract questions of civility or style. thanks, dab (𒁳) 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst

And now for something completely different. Looking for something to say about you and your detractors, I came to that page. I noticed your excellent analysis there (note that I live in Flanders and can boast a rather good command of the Dutch language). The following may be interesting to you:

1)Koenraad Elst has recently been taken to an Antwerp hospital, where he is now waiting for a heart transplant - that is too bad, since it means we may have to be careful on human grounds

2)you wrote on the talk page "but it turns out that Elst acted as "Islam expert" for the Vlaams Blok, appearing as "guest speaker" at Neo-Nazi conferences". In fact, there is a book where this is explicitly claimed: Jan De Zutter "Heidenen voor het blok - Radicaal rechts en het moderne Heidendom" (Heathens in favour of the Blok - the radical Right and modern Heathenism), ISBN 90 5240 582 4 (Published by Uitgeverij © Uitgeverij Houtekiet, Antwerpen / Baarn; 2000; 174 pages)

The author claims on p 17 that KE, introduced as a specialist on Islam, held a speech on Islam at the same Vlaams Blok Colloquium in 1992 where the radical right party presented its 70 point programme.

We do not even need to quote the book to prove this, because KE himself quotes this episode and De Zutter's book as the origin of the belief that he is extreme-right or a racist or the islam specialist of the Vlaams Blok, which he claims not to be (to use a cliché here, "he is not the only one to do so"). He once made this claim in an article in the right-wing, pardon me, conservative, magazine "Nucleus": look for "mijn standpunt". In this article, he claims that the Vlaams Blok programme THEN was not what he proposed, or what he would have proposed (though according to him, now in 2001, they are getting closer to his viewpoint, surprise) but he does defend the party in no uncertain way: "the other parties preferred to ignore the problem" "the big bad wolf". In his last two paragraphs KE accuses the liberals Guy Verhofstadt, Patrick Dewael, Karel De Gucht and Louis Michel of demonizing the "right-wing opposition" and wanting to outlaw it - comparing them to Torquemada and Mohammed. --Paul Pieniezny 13:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks -- I will be grateful if you can look into this, since my command of the Dutch language is wanting to say the least... Since I had no intention to unduly smear Elst, I don't see why our coverage should depend on whether he is in hospital at present. dab (𒁳) 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate this. the problem I am having is that the inline refs in the article are not how they should be (there are links to internet sites there, and they do not have info like access date) - De Zutter's book should be under a heading "Source", but as the article is now, tehre is far too much bibliography, and not enough source. But I am thinking of fixing that, when I have some spare time. In teh meantime, could you have a look at the wording? Is it NPOV enough? --Paul Pieniezny 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"comparing them to Torquemada and Mohammed" is actually rather funny. "You soft-headed liberal hippies, you are worse than ... than ... Mohammed!" -- somehow reminds me of how I keep being accused of "racism" by, to put it politely, ethnocentrists :p dab (𒁳) 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I noted that funny resemblance too, and mentioned it in my comment on the RFA. Only one of those people quoted is a left-wing liberal by the way (Karel De Gucht - I do not know whether their articles make this clear, you will have to trust me on this, but I suppose American readers here would not even have a clue what is meant by "right-wing liberal").

The 70 points on immigration were for a long time seen as the constitution of the Vlaams Blok, in 1996 they were slightly updated. In recent years, a number of Vlaams Belang leaders have claimed that the programme is no longer valid, and have advocated views which seem to come straight from Elst's writings. The 1992 programme specifically assumed that moslims could not integrate and called for the foundation of Islamic schools with Turkish and Arabic as teaching languages, to facilitate the return of muslim children born in Belgium. Today, many leaders seem to adhere to Elst's belief that moslims can be integrated if only they quit being moslims - basically Elst's version. The party even fielded a few (ex-)moslims on its lists for the municipal elections. Another interesting parallel between Elst and the present Vlaams Belang is the attitude towards Jews. While in the early '90s many cadres of Vlaams Blok were antisemitic (Elst claims that this was because of the legacy of world war II) and the party only supported Israel, because that is the place where all Jews belong, in recent years the party even tried to get Jewish votes, particularly from the orthodox community in Antwerp (the least integrated part of Belgian Jewry, therefore).

This change of heart towards the Jewish community by a party whose earliest members had a connection with neo-nazism (even Elst concedes that in the link I gave you) can sometimes lead to very strange, almost schizophrenic situations. On this page which is obviously rather sympathetic to the Vlaams Belang and its views (the first picture there is of the leader of the Vlaams Belang being arrested at an outlawed anti-Islam meeting in Brussels), one article calls the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism "an instrument of the Zionist world dictatorship's inquisition" (Torquemada again, it is in a title which you can find by searching for Siegfried Verbeke) whereas the preceding article is about Filip Dewinter's interview in Jewish Week and another one quotes the Centre's figures on violence against Jews in Belgium to score an anti-islamic point. The article by Koenraad Elst there is about a girl of Sri Lankan roots fired for racism at her weekend jobs because she stood as a Vlaams Belang candidate at the lasty election. KE argues that the Centre should use its habitual inquisitional style to drag the employers before the courts for racism.

I suppose all this more or less proves that the assertion made on the talk page that KE is not really known in Belgium, is in fact not entirely correct: he is largely ignored in scientific circles, but rather well-known in Flemish extreme-right circles. His ties with neopaganism seem not be so well-known, however. One Vlaams Belang blogger (Björn Roose) on the occasion of KE being taken to hospital, wrote "I am not a Roman Catholic myself but I hope Koenraad's gods will stand by him" . Which looks like he knows about KE's Hindu links, but not about his neopaganism. Though I agree, that is OR not suitable for the article on such flimsy evidence.

By the way, on Dutch wiki a paragraph on Elst's links to radical Hindus (!) got deleted because it was unsourced and claimed to be libel (there is no fixed BLP rule on Dutch wiki). The whole text now looks like a hagiography of an esteemed ethnical scientist. Do you have one good link that could take care of that? Dutch Wiki has no problem at all with sources in English, French or German. --Paul Pieniezny 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thracians

Hello. Could you please take a look at Thracians? The Origins section mentions 'proto-Thracian' tombs (a Thracian dagger as well) dating back to 3,000 BC while also claiming that the Thracians (Thracians-to-be?) arrived in Thrace and conquered the indigenous people 'sometime around 1,500 BC'. Sorry for bothering you (again) but you are knowledgeable about the subject so I thought I'd ask. 3rdAlcove 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

no problem. I can tell you from my armchair, so to speak, that these dates are pure speculation. We just need to known whose speculation per WP:CITE. dab (𒁳) 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response. Yeah, what I found curious was the disagreement between the two dating views. The first one (citing this and this) mentions that proto-Thracian culture began to form in Thrace during about 3,000 BC. On the other hand, the second (citing this) wants the Thracians invading (or migrating to) the area of Thrace around 1,500 BC. Perhaps you could shed some light on this, maybe I'm just missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdAlcove (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

it's just a question of terminology. For Indo-Europeanists, "Thracian" refers to the (satem?) Thracian language, which cannot be assumed to predate the Iron Age. For archaeologists, "Thracian" simply stands for "archaeological continuity in Bulgaria", which can indeed be argued to go back to the early Bronze Age. In this case, "Thracian" is just a conventional label and has nothing much to do with the Θρακοι of Herodotus. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your explanation and time. 3rdAlcove 12:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

merger proposals

You use a certain template (I can't insert it here becasue it screws up the page) when proposing mergers, but Help:Merging and moving pages gives different templates. In addition, it suggests to put a tag on both pages that are considered to be merged. Is there some policy that I am missing? All the best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's {{merge}}. If you want to do it properly, use {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}. But don't worry, this isn't "policy", just best procedure. regards, dab (𒁳) 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know...

On 5 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Swiss emigration to Russia, 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.

--Woody (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On December 7 2007, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neo-völkisch movements, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Neo-völkisch movements), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tower of Babel

Not it's me that's getting grief from Til Eugenspiel on talk:Tower of Babel. Care to speak up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadwind (talk • contribs) 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 talk 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose

No, it's not a violation of WP:BITE "now" -- I'm not changing anything; I'm just giving my interpretation of a longstanding guideline. There is nothing wrong in principle with writing "strong oppose". However, its appropriateness clearly depends on context. In an adminship discussion for an experienced but unsuitable user, a "strong oppose" alongside careful reasons can be valuable. In this case, however, the "strong" added exactly nothing. Its only possible effect is to make the candidate more discouraged at the outcome of the RFA. I have no objection to the rest of the comment. This is of course a minor concern, but I think my reasoning is sound enough, and I am surprised to have met such resistance.

I am not suggesting that anybody is violating policies or guidelines or anything else. I am only making a suggestion that reflects my opinion, just as WP:BITE is a well-reasoned essay that reflects my opinion. — Dan | talk 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page for templates relating to pagan topics

Hello there dab, I'm aware that at least five different templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area. I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles, and I'd suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. I'm writing to you because I know you have been involved with these articles quite closely. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Of course if you want to have a 1:1 discussion about this, then please do reply here or on my own talk page. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I agree some of these templates should probably be merged. dab (𒁳) 07:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian religions

Hi, have a look at Indian religions. IAF has reverted your edits. Looks like he is fishing for edit wars. He has not even cared to reply to me here – User_talk:Anishshah19/Discussion_with_IAF.--Anish (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

well, why don't you just revert him? dab (𒁳) 09:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be the first Ref Desk Barnstar awarded.

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		"Wouldn't it be great if some wonderful person sat down and synthesised the guts of those answers into a discrete "mini-article"." (Jack of Oz) SaundersW (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am honoured. "squameus" though? dab (𒁳) 09:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

An "in" joke, I believe. Rupert Brooke wrote a poem in which he proposed that fish might believe in a god that was "Squameous, omniscient and kind".

"And there, they trust, there swimmeth One
Who swam ere rivers were begun,
Immense, of fishy form and mind,
Squamous, omnipotent, and kind."
It also appears that it is the second, or maybe the third, but still highly deserved. SaundersW (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

excellent :) dab (𒁳) 09:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

:-) But where did they get benevolus from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"kind"? You mean that doesn't quite fit me? I'll go with omnisciens then, thank you very much. dab (𒁳) 11:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah, stupid me for not looking it up in Perseus. Thought there was only benevolens. So I, for one, am apparently excluded from omniscient. I guess that leaves me with just squameous then? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

benevolens is certainly the expected translation. I was going to complain too, but had the ...hm... wisdom to look it up first. dab (𒁳) 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to pick that many holes in the poor thing, there will not be much of the star left! :))) SaundersW (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

origin of religion

I am struggling to understand your actions. At one point you express support for the article origin of religion, then you turn around and say it inappropriate. I believe that you recognize that the article is valid, but you are just unhappy that I am the one who is creating it. These are your comments ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:

• 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
• 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
• 3. the teleological view (revelation)

the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?. Muntuwandi (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

you are right, I need to sit down and devote some time to this. The problem is, as always, not with the validity of the topic itself but with your erratic or idiosyncratic approach. I'll get back to this. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

English words of Celtic origin

Hi. I noticed you'd been editing this area so I had a look myself. I've removed several entries from List of English words of Welsh origin since they didn't check out against the etymologies offered by my copy of the Concise OED. List of English words of Irish origin might be an even bigger problem since it seems heavily reliant on How The Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language Of The Crossroads by Daniel Cassidy, which hasn't had a very good press amongst professional linguists, to say the least (see for example [4] and [5]). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've only done a few housekeeping edits, but these list do seem to have some problems. Already due to scope overlap: List of English words of Celtic origin should be a disambiguation page, between List of English words of Scottish Gaelic origin, List of English words of Irish origin, List of English words of Welsh origin. The difference between Irish words used in the English language and List of English words of Irish origin is also less than clear. dab (𒁳) 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The whole lot probably needs sorting out. Maybe I'll get back to it after Christmas. I'm no expert on Celtic languages but we should insist on reliable sources - and I notice someone has already questioned Cassidy's reliability on the talk page. Seasons greetings. --Folantin (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

IPA2 template

Hi Dieter,

I agree we have a good IPA article (we've both put a lot of time into it), but it's overwhelming as a pronunciation guide for someone who doesn't even know what the IPA is, which includes a surprising number of Brits. (I'd always thought that was primarily a Usonian problem.) It's actually worse than useless in some ways, as it's intimidating and deters people from using the IPA at all — which may be why so many people advertise their IPA ability on their user pages! I've heard complaints about the IPA being inaccessible for years, and that's been one of the main arguments for using pronunciation respellings instead, which of course are pretty useless for most people whose native language is not English. Since the IPA template links are intended for IPA novices, who often just need to know what [θ] or [eɪ] represent, not their names or histories, I think it's best to link basic pronunciation guides to an IPA chart that's as simple as possible. If they want a more technical treatment, the chart links to the main article. Articles with more than a couple instances of IPA transcription already link to both the chart and the main IPA article through the Notice IPA template. kwami (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I like what you did with the Pronunciation template. kwami (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the problem. But I dislike links to Help: namespace from article bodies. Since {{IPA2}} is primarily used for pronunciation information of non-English words, a link to International Phonetic Alphabet for English isn't an option. Since the lead of the IPA article gives a summary of what it is, and the headnote overtly links to Help:IPA, I don't really see a problem in sending people to IPA. I generally resist the tendency on Wikipedia to assume our readers are morons by default. Of course we cannot assume everyone knows everything, but we can bloody well assume people have the intelligence to click on a blue link if they are interested in finding out more if it is shoved in their face. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Earliest evidence of religion and theories of origin

Dbachmann,

I was wondering what your thoughts are on developing some of the evolutionary materials in two seperate directions. One direction would include all of the early evidence of religious or religious like behavior--particularly in the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods. This would mean expanding (and possibly renaming) Prehistoric religion. The second direction would be creating a page mostly devoid of that type of information that instead focuses on notable theories that account for the origin of religion through evolutionary processes. This would include the work of Boyer, Wolpert, Dawkins, and others. It could also include a brief introduction that explains that while the entry focuses on contemporary theorists (influenced by later developments in evolutionary biology, archeology, etc.) there is in fact a history of such theorizing that goes back to the birth of the social sciences and the study of religion (Tylor, Marrett, etc.). I'm not sure how exactly these two pages would be integrated into the Development of religion entry, but maybe you have suggestions about that. Of course, maybe you don't like this idea at all, but I thought I'd open the conversation up. Despite what another editor likes to suggest I am in fact interested in developing this information through fruitful channels. Thanks for your consideration of this.PelleSmith (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that evolution of religion is eventually going to be an independent article, linked from development of religion per WP:SS. This evolution of religion article can discuss the various theories and their histories at length. The mere timeline of archaeological findings is just the raw material for such theories (and not for our own article per WP:SYN), and would belong in a different article, i.e. prehistoric religion and paleolithic burial (the latter at present a redirect). Note there is Evolution of belief -- since early religion has nothing to do with belief, I am not sure what to do with this, but it clearly needs to be incorporated in the solution. dab (𒁳) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, I collected what we have in origin of religion. This needs a lot of work. dab (𒁳) 17:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas, I don't know I will be online or not. :) ..... so wishing you all in advance..BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you. I wish you success in 2008. --dab (𒁳) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

de:Ansleich

Hallo Dieter,

Meine Quelle für Ansleich war Paul Herrmanns Deutsch Mythologie. Ich habe das Buch jetzt nicht zur Hand, es kann aber sein das dort die latinisierte Form Ansleicus aufgeführt ist und dann nur das Teilwort Leicus als Leich eingedeutscht wurde. Die Form Ansleich ist wie Du selbst schreibst im Prinzip korrekt. Wenn sie nicht von Herrmann stammt, geht sie als Zusammensetzung auf mein Konto ;-). Vielleicht kann man die Artikel Ansleich und Oslac auf der dt. Wiki unter Ansleicus zusammenbringen.

Ich finde es gut, daß Du jetzt mehr für die deutschsprachige Wiki schreiben möchtest. --Grüße Andreas aka Rumpenisse (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, danke: wie gesagt bin ich mit der Rekonstruktion einverstanden. Ich hatte mich v.a. nach dem angeblichen neuheidnischen "Ansleich" erkundigt. Bzgl. de-wiki muss ich leider sagen, dass mir das dortige Klima etwas sehr preussisch vorkommt, verglichen mit en-wiki wird dort mit eisernem Besen für Ordnung gesorgt in einem Ausmass das das "natürliche" Wachstum von Artikeln eher behindert. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa edits

I would encourage you to discuss your deletions of the text before performing them, Being BOLD is a less than useful policy to follow in an article that has seen a lot of contention, especially for the sorts of unexplained edits that you made. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would add that I consider you to be a good editor, and didn't think you were being a kook or whatnot. The radar is up concerning large deletions without discussion. I hope you understand. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am aware I did not discuss my edit, so I have no problem with its being reverted. My edit was intended as purely an implementation of WP:SS, not as disputing the factuality of anything. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

RFPP request concerning yourself

Just noticing you of Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection titled "Abuse admin rights by Dbachmann (talk · contribs)". Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I already pointed out on WP:AN/I that the page protection was made by User:Angr, not you as claimed by Raucous01 Rokus01 in 3 places. Bonnes fêtes, Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have even expressed disagreement with the protection, it isn't even as if Angr acted as my meatpuppet or something. In my book, Rokus' pov-pushing can and should be addressed by reverts, and if necessary sanctions against him, not by article protection. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it was my surprise to see you go that far to cut short a discussion. If you are serious on achieving mutual improvements on this subject, including the rightful interpretation and enforcement of WP policy, please play by the rules and have this silly protection revoked. This protection is tainted and turns against your personal credibility, whatever you or your proponents will have to say on it. It is crystal clear no editwar was at hand to justify such a full protect. If you agree as much as you say, I expect this to be resolved as soon as possible. By the way, reverts of sourced information should be addressed by Arbcom and so far the charge of pov pushing is on your side. Rokus01 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

wtf, can you read? I did not protect the bleeding article, if you want to whine about protection, go to User_talk:Angr. Or, while you are here, why not blame me for global warming and international terrorism too? dab (𒁳) 18:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy Message

Sorry, this courtesy slipped my notice. Mathsci, thanks for making me aware.

{{ANI-notice}} [6]

Rokus01 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

um, why "inform" me after I have reacted, and after your "report" had been debunked as bogus? Are you quite there, Rokus, or already immersed in Christmas festivities? Anyway, what are you doing here, I thought you had decided to leave Wikipedia? dab (𒁳) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bogus? I think you are the most interesting arbocase in the Wikipedia history. I can see another incident you caused just a few moments ago, by restoring erroneous and wrongly sourced allegations to Koenraad Elst. Are you still serious or is it you that is working towards a grand finale? How come you thought I'll ever leave Wikipedia alone with you? Maybe it would be interesting to map your friends and some all too obvious administrator aspirants? Rokus01 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you Wikipedia's owner?

With what authority do you cancel other users' contributions? --Esimal (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

do you have anything to say on the civil and patient reasoning I gave when I reverted your undiscussed and summary-less edits? It appears you would do well by beginning by patiently reading WP:5P, and then work your way through WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 21:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)