User talk:Dbachmann/archive8

Naming conventions

Dieter, what do you think about Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Proposed addition? — mark ✎ 1 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)

Ha, that's a nice link you added to your user page. I live right here, close to the Central Station of Leiden. The University Library is just a few hundred meters to the south: here. Thanks for the fun! — mark ✎ 2 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Haabet

Hi Dab, Haabet is making a mess again. Now among the Danish kings[1]. The Danes have been forced to block him for a longer period of time, and I guess the time has come to English Wikipedia as well. I would not do anything without a second opinion, though.--Wiglaf 3 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Dab. I guess he would be considered too harmless by most editors for opening an rfc. Regards,--Wiglaf 3 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that :).--Wiglaf 3 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

hei

How can I talk to you in private? User:Raikkonen

Dab, Miskin wants to know if you can lift his temporary ban for violating WP:3RR. Seeing as how it will be lifted soon anyway, I think he should just wait it out; after all, he did violate the rule. Decius 5 July 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Gimbutas etc.

Hello, dab, you removed the line "Gimbutas's theses are not widely accepted." from Old European culture. I suppose that line isn't completely accurate, mostly because it is too polite, because I didn't have the time to rewrite the article to more fully put these theories in context. See for example Bryn Mawr Classical Review http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1999/1999-10-03.html or http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1999/1999-10-05.html: "Although Gimbutas's beliefs in an early matrilineal/focal society throughout what she terms "Old Europe" (Pre-Indo-European culture) have been embraced by many grassroots feminists as the authoritative scholarly voice on the topic, her reception among academic archaeologists has been less than favorable, running the gamut from apathy and annoyance to disdain and bitter controversy." There is also a useful collection of excerpts at http://www.debunker.com/texts/goddess.html. --Macrakis 5 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

You say: "you have to be specific about which theories of Gimbutas' you are referring to". Agreed. The comment was specific to the paragraph in the article Old European culture. The terms "Old European" and "archaeomythology" themselves are used almost entirely by her followers, and not widely accepted in academia (in fact, I'd argue that the Old European article should focus only on her approach, and that there should be a separate pre-IE article). The notion of pre-IE culture being "peaceful and matrilinear" is not widely accepted. I certainly agree with you that one can be more precise about which of her theses are mainstream and which are fringe. Do you want to do the edit? --Macrakis 5 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

Abuse

He (ChrisO) violated the rule as well: In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally. So did the other users but the punishment fell on me, it might have to do with the fact that a biased admin is supervising such an ethnic debate. I did violate it 2 days ago and he gave me a warning. After his warning I apologised for blanking out the page and I started editing after Discussions. Then I would msg ChrisO for some changes I made, hoping that he would point out something that bothered him. Not even once he replied to me about it, he completely ignored me. After a short edit war, we were about to find a solution on the Talk page of "Demographic history of Macedonia". Just before reashing to a mutually acceptable solution, ChrisO appears from nowhere (hadn't been participating), he locks the article by saying "solve this in Discussion first", proving that he hadn't been following it (as we had been discussing for hours). Then he blocks me supposedly under 3RR, by saying "violated the 3RR on Demographic history of Macedonia and other articles. Now concerning the other articles, that's the most ironic thing of all. I was correcting the mistakes of List of Extinct languages and Extinct language which wrongly categorised Ancient Greek as a separate dead language. As Decius would put it, "according to lingusts" Greek is a language, and Ancient Greek is one of its stages, this is common knowledge. Anyway I took this to Talk, I proved to those two people that they were wrong, I stated my sources and edited their mistake. One of them who just wouldn't admit being wrong, kept editing the page (by violating 3RR), I urged him not to start an edit war and pose the question if he knows any Greek to be able to have an opinion. His answer was reporting me to ChrisO (because he read my Talk page), claiming that I violated 3RR. ChrisO instantly, ignoring all msgs I had sent him and all Discussions I had made with other editors, he gives me a block under the accusation "violated 3RR on DHM and other articles". The funny thing is that the "violation of 3RR on other aricles", was referring to the removal of Greek from the list and definition of extinct languages. I have contributed to all articles of the Greek language and written from scratch many others such as Modern Greek, Ancient Greek, Medieval Greek, Koine Greek, and this guy is accusing me for vandalising an article that concerns the Greek language. He obviously didn't take a look at neither Talk:List of extinct languages, nor Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia nor my contributions. He never replied to my msgs and he indirectly accused me for vandalism, something that can be disproved by my long edits in the Talk pages. Basically the only factor which matters here is that he doesn't like me. Needless to say that he blocked my entire IP range x.x.x.*, blocking thus one of the biggest Greek ISPs. He gave me an autoblock, and when I logged in as Miskin under a different ISP, he autoblocked that IP range as well for being under my name. So he must have blocked out 3 of the largest Greek ISPs (that should be some millions of Greek and Balkan internet users) just because he was too lazy to read the Discussion pages and participate on the debate. I don't even want to mention the fact that a Slavic admin (potentionally biased) is taking desicions on a Greco-Slavic ethnic debate. Anyway I'm planning to report this incident to the mailing list, I just thought I'd let you know about this first because you're the only admin who deals with linguistics and knows that I'm right at least on the "other articles" issue. I'm not expecting you to take my word for this, feel free to look at Talk:List of extinct languages or Talk:Extinct language, which is supposedly the reason for the ban. Just for the record, some 30 hours have passed and the ban is still there. Miskin

As you're the only admin with a clue on the Greek language, would you please help me settle the debate in Extinct language and List of extinct languages with those stubborn people? Miskin

Odysseas

After reading carefully again all the talk page, i feel obligeted to apologise for considering you biased and prejudiced. I don't think that we have so many differencies in our views and i am happy that this article has evolved after endless convertations in this level. It would also be very pleasant for me if you would accept my apologises if in some of my edits i was bitter towards you and if by any chanse i offended you. Have a nice day.Odysseas 6 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

race

See the talk page for discussion of the phylogenetic tree you produced. --Rikurzhen July 7, 2005 00:24 (UTC)

List of extinct languages

It seems to me that Miskin is misrepresenting your views. You stated that you don't think languages with spoken descendants should be listed. I can agree with that as long as it is applied to the entire article. Miskin claims that you agree Old French and Old English should be listed as extinct, while ancient Greek should not be. Is that the case? If not, I invite you to revert Miskin's edits to List of extinct languages. Decius 8 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

Noric language?

Have you ever heard of the Noric language? It's supposed to be Continental Celtic, but none of the books I have mentions it. See my comments on its talk page. I'm considering nominating it for deletion if no one verifies it in the next week or two, what do you think? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 8 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made Noric language a redirect to Noricum. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi Dbachmann, you made a very nice timeline some time ago. I would like to invite you to read and comment on my project proposal for a Grand Unified Timeline of Human History. Erik Zachte 8 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

The Incas?

Who do you suppose ran the camps? The Incas?

• Naah, it was probably us Jews. Or maybe the Puerto Ricans. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 23:34 (UTC)

IAST

Why did you revert my edit to IAST? AFAIK, the visarga (ः) is ḥ and not h, which is the letter ह. You can respond here; I'm watching this page. Ambarish 22:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

well, this is exactly what the article said before you made your change. voiced aspirate is h, visarga is ḥ, I really don't see what you mean. dab (ᛏ) 12:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, looks like I've goofed big time; sorry for wasting your time! Ambarish 08:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

no problem; I had assumed this was a misunderstanding. regards, dab (ᛏ) 14:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia slant

Slanted Pokemon! LOL --Mothperson 14:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you please ...

... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Tolkien

It is my understanding that category A is a subcategory of category B (in this case, Category:J. R. R. Tolkien of Category:British Army officers or Category:People with asteroids named after them) when the articles in Category A would fit in B, with only a small amount of squeezing. In both cases, I think Tolkien himself is the only overlap.

Both these do raise the question of whether categories are meant to be complete (is everyone who had a WWI commission supposed to be in Category:British Army officers? Robert Graves isn't; but I'll think I'll go add him.) Septentrionalis 20:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Your approach to the origin of Numenor is perfectly acceptable (although I think I recall a sketch from 1938, so Around the Second World War might be better). I thought the original text could be read as saying that the matter of Numemor was comtemporary with Lost Tales. Septentrionalis 20:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Tolkien was an officer; Valinor was not. Both are, and ought to be, in Category:J. R. R. Tolkien. Only Tolkien should be in the Category:British Army officers. Therefore the category Category:J. R. R. Tolkien is not a subcategory of Category:British Army officers. (If Valinor were a lone exception, it could be ignored; but it's the rule, and Tolkien the exception.) Septentrionalis 21:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You have a real point (Arthur Conan Doyle is in the same boat, and two obvious categories are missing there). I left, and will leave, the categories about Tolkien's writing as supercats of Tolkien, the category. I think the categories will stretch that far, but having Tolkien as the only subcat of People with asteroids named for them was just strange. Septentrionalis 02:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not trolling. I am serious

I am a flat earth believer. Please dont let your round earth POV and your blind belief that earth is a sphere to overcome the truth. Flat Earth is an article dedicated to flat earth theory, so please let us express our theory there. thank you. Flat-Earther 07:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Unsourced statements will just be reverted"? Do you consider the statements of our founder, Charles K. Johnson unsourced or not? If you consider his statements unsourced, then why you keep them in the article and you dont delete them? If you consider Charles K. Johnson's statements sourced, then my statements are just a supplement of his theory, and should be presented too. Please, dont let you round earth POV to affect your fair judgement. The enhanced flat earth theory is based on recent discoveries of superstring and parallel universe theories. Flat-Earther

No no! I have some printed publications that are the proof of the enhanced flat-earth theory, you could give me your address and send them to you. Unfortunately these publications are only in printed form. I cannot find them in a web site. What about our comrades, the square earth believers? They have no printed publications, but they have a web publication [2]. Could you please decide what you mean by "sourced statements". Do you consider printed publications as sourced statements? Do you consider web publications as sourced statements? Or, do you consider as "sourced statements" the statements of your favorite web sites and publishers and you judge all the rest as non reliable? Flat-Earther 08:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

dab, are you also a flat Earth believer? -- Zeno of Elea 00:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Vedic civilization

Some text is garbled in this article... could you please look at it and correct it? Thanks. "Samhita prose. This period marks the beginning [of the?] collection and codification of a Vedic canon. An important linguistic change is the complete loss of the <<<<injunctive nd of the modi of the aorist>>>>." --Macrakis 15:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting this text. A small problem: injunctive links to an article about legal injunctions. Perhaps it should link to, e.g. injunctive or something? --Macrakis 04:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Invalid Analogy

"except the WSJ is not the best of examples here; most WSJ articles would be torn to pieces on Wikipedia in a matter of minutes for being ridiculously biased and rife with strawmen."

The WSJ is engaged in daily deadline-beating journalism, wikipedia isn't, which makes your analogy itself biased. The strictly news pages of the WSJ are as good at what they do as any other such pages on earth, IMHO ... and just as subject to errors, but no more so. The editorial and opinion pages carry some wild stuff ... but they're supposed to. --Christofurio 13:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

India history

I've posted a reply on the Indian history talk. Awaiting your response. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've posted some more stuff on the history page, please reply so that I can resume editing the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

God v/s god

Why did you undo my edits to the Rig Veda page where I changed god to God? I was merely applying the WP:MOS guidelines: "Deities begin with a capital letter: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah."

Devas

Dab, do devas mean "shining beings." I think it does but I don't have a reference. If it doesn't, please remove that reference, in the devas article.

Thanks,

Raj2004 16:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

contrarian opinion supported by facts has the right to be expressed

Dear Mr Bachman,

Thank you for your prompt remarks and assistance. I am proponent of fair play. I am professionnally acquainted with the theories of Acad.Prof.Dr. A.Fomenko. I have discovered a real "damage control" campaign set up by professional historians on the pages of Wikipedia. This "damage control" campaign is both one-sided and unfair. Well, that's free country, isn't it? At the same time, the exact sciences crowd and general public have the right to present counterarguments. Rest assured, the hard facts highly damaging to the concensual history do abound - in professional historical sources for example. These tasty chunks will be presented on your pages for public scrutiny. Historians simply do not want neither to learn new methods that can be applied to historical data, nor to join forces with researches from other domains. Kindly believe me, it is high time for history to drop "proud profession" habits and to become a science. One wonders which is pseudoscience. Fomenko's theory is neither a conspiracy, nor a pseudoscience - it is application of maths and stats and astronomy to historical data; it is like bitter drugs for sweettooth patients. Terpsychore is a muse senior to Clio, right?

Prof.Dr.Franck Ver Stut

Celtic Calendar

Hi - you recently wrote "The date of its inception is unknown, but correspondences of Insular Celtic and Continental Celtic calendars suggest that some early form may date to Proto-Celtic times, roughly 800 BC". That sounds very interesting, but I am not sure what exactly you mean. Are you referring to the conections between the Insular Irish mediaeval calendar (Samhain and Beltane) to Samonios and Giamonios? If so, its not clear to me how this produces an 800 BC date. Could you explain further? --Nantonos 14:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

New Sockpuppet?

Hey, I notice you've suffered some abuse on the Jihad page reverting vandalism and I appreciate what you're doing. However, it seems that a new user User:Ni-ju-Ichi has come and started editing the Jihad article with remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia. Checking this user's history it seems he edited the same article as Kurita77 who was also found to be a sockpuppet and also edited the Jihad article. Since you're an admin, I was wondering if you could find out if these two users are indeed the same person?Heraclius 03:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Haven't seen you lately

Were/are you on vacation?  :-) Chronographos 10:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hehehehehe, nice! Did you include samples of bird talk from Aristophanes?  :-))) Chronographos 10:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, what do you say we begin ArbCom proceedings?

Re EnviroZenoKainKabongExistKnot? Please let me know your thoughts ASAP. BrandonYusufToropov 21:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I will start working on this, should have a link for you to look at soon, Godwilling. BrandonYusufToropov 21:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

Hi Dieter, no one requested protection. There was a 3RR-violation report against Brandon, though in fact it was mostly anons and new accounts who were reverting, so I decided the best thing to do was protect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hyperberetaios

You never gave me any feedback. Shall I go ahead and write something myself? Chronographos 09:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

The mop is mine!

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Koine and modern Greek

DAB, in response to my discussion of the differences between Koine and modern Greek in Talk:Greek language, Chronographos and Theathenae responded with sarcasm and insults. I have no interest in pissing contests. Do you have any suggestions on how to reorient the discussion towards substance? I'm afraid you'll have to read the section from the beginning, because my statements were misrepresented later in the discussion. --Macrakis 16:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Dab, advice please

None other than Albanau is creating some havoc of his own (erasing talk pages etc). The admin who has tried to regulate the relevant page, Bratsche, is apparently on Wikibreak. I am not asking you to waste any time of yours on this, just two questions: what should I do on this matter and how is possible sockpuppetry investigated? Thanks Chronographos 14:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I have some exciting news on the Katadesmos and Hyperberetaios)

Please stop making false allegations against me.

I realize you are upset and probably have trouble controlling your temper. I also realize your apparent friendship with users like Heraclius and BrandonYusufToropov is clouding your judgement. I am requesting that you cease making false allegations against me.Existentializer 15:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

admin help request

Houston we have a vandalism problem with a well-known Albanian nationalist troll who just can't take the picture in Talk:Arvanitic language. Thanks. Miskin 16:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically something drastic has to be done about Albanau. All he does in wikipedia is to go around and perform petty vandalism in various articles. He starts edit wars in like 10 aricles per day, by editing them according to his personal nationalist convictions. He doesn't give a rat's ass about what's being said in discussion and basically, it's pretty obvious that he's overall presence bring nothing but trouble. Today he's been vandalising and edit-warring in Skanderbeg, History of Albania, Arvanitic language just with me. I'll be on holiday for a couple of days so maybe you'd like to keep an eye on his "NPOV" claims about half of the Roman Emperors being of Albanian origin. Miskin

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Zivinbudas. He has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look

@ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Regarding_your_messege. I have never spoken w this user (outside of leaving a welcome note a long time ago), but after a bit of research, it would appear you may be the source of his angst regarding this image -->

File:Distribution of Islam.jpg

Distribution_of_Islam

. Please have a look, and gently correct his confusion, if you will. Cheers,

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Aren't they just sweet?

User:Chronographos/Family_letters: let me know what you think Chronographos 15:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Good for you on both counts! Still, I wonder what the proper course of action is/should be. For example Thryduulf comes and warns me sternly to lay off Albanau (although he mentions he hasn't really delved into what went on), yet Rama says he reviewed what happened and found nothing wrong with it. So whom am I to believe? Chronographos 10:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (I did post at WP:AN/I, but no one answered me)

Oh, and I forgot the exciting news. What do you know about the journal "Glotta"? Chronographos 10:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

One down ..... Chronographos 20:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Two down .... Chronographos 21:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Brythonic / Gaulish

You wrote on 20 June

I'll yet provide you with Insular Celtic common innovations, but I have to look them up.

I was wondering if you had had a chance to look for them? No worries if not, just that I find it interesting. --Nantonos 02:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Albanau & Theathenae

User:Albanau is an atrocious Wikipedian, but so is User:Theathenae. The fact that Albanau is Albanian and Theathenae is Greek isn't a factor to me: they both need to change their Wikiways or be disciplined according to Wiki policies. Decius 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Lilith

Nice job on tidying up the Lilith article. You had me worried for a while, when one of the earlier versions had a lead para that opened with a bible reference. But I figured you probably hadn't finished knocking things around, so decided I'd best wait a bit before commenting. Looks good now. -- Solipsist 14:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon

Gabrielsimon has progressed to removing comments off the talk page that he doesn't like and removing part of the evidence section of the RfC against him. I was hoping you could help watch him and make sure he doesn't do it, tracing it back and undoing it is getting complicated for me. DreamGuy 18:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE

this is pathetic, I suggest you find something more productive to do on Wikipedia :( dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I know it is pathetic and I am feeling pathetic about this :(.--Wiglaf 19:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

hey Wiglaf, you do realize, of course, that the comment was directed at Soltan, not you? I am glad you are looking after this, we can't let him get away with this, after all. dab (ᛏ) 19:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I was doubting whether this work was worthwhile :).--Wiglaf 20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Protocol

Hi -- I saw you get annoyed at Zeno (and rightly so) and it brought up a curious question for me. If you look here you will see Germen's list of Muslim editors. Now, I know that can serve no purpose and he is using it as an insult to them. He also has me as "probably Muslim" which is pretty amusing except for... it's not. Of course, I'm not offended but I'm bothered that I still have to take users who do things like that seriously and get into revert wars and pretend that they are a typical user trying to come to wikipedia to help expand our content with NPOV material. To me this seems to be a big flaw in wikipedia and I realize more and more that when I do syntax edits for new articles I'm doing more good than with constant bickering on Islam related articles. Just curious what you think. gren 19:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not sure that'd solve any problems. I don't care that my name is on the list. I care that I have to take an editor like that seriously. I might mention that the whole list is generally distasteful and does not exactly reflect well and seems to violate Wikipedia:Civility to me. gren 20:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Galilean moons

Is there any evidence beyond idle speculation for the "four dogs of Marduk" theory? Remember these moons are pretty much invisible to the naked eye, and Galileo's discovery was entirely dependant on his being the first to turn a telescope toward Jupiter. Only the farthest, Callisto, is even borderline visible under the absolute best of circumstances. Maybe the theory belongs on the Galilean moons article, but I don't really think it fits in a table on the discovery of the Solar System's moons.--Pharos 06:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• The thing is that claims of pre-telescopic discovery of invisible-to-the-eye astronomical bodies (usually through vague mythology of astronomically-associated deities) are rather common, and if we were thorough we'd probably have to preface every entry like that. Maybe someone could write an article on the model of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact that we could link to at the top.--Pharos 06:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Switzermaryland

I thougt the comparisons were supposed to be placed under some "magnitude" link, and it seemed too US-centred for me to explain the population density of an independent state with a sub-entity of another. It gave too much of an impression that the data was just copied from the CIA Factbook. But maybe I should have brought the subject up on Talk first. Not that a big deal for me, anyway. Jørgen 08:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Survey at Talk:Elam

I note your frequent pleas for peace so that you and other editors can get on with writing the article. I've attempted to do something that I hope will contribute to that aim. If you can accept the result, date notation will switch to BCE/CE and maybe, (just maybe) peace will reign on the Elam page (as it has on the Buddhism and Taoism pages). I think you hold the key on this. Best wishes. Sunray 08:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed the debate goes on at Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise_proposal. I have dutifully added my comments and my vote. However, this proposal like the last one is sure to fail. Thus, we are left with the existing policies and guidelines. So we do our best to apply them, no? Sunray 08:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Too simple! Sunray 08:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

RfAr / user:Germen

As far as I understand you have a quite neutral stance in this matter, as you agree to some extent to my POV but disagree with my behaviour. I would like you to mediate in my conflict with user:Axon about the Islamophobia article. [3] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have agreed to mediation with Germen, with you as mediator. I hope we can come to a resolution that is satisfactory to both parties. Please let me know what are the next steps. -Axon (talk|contribs) 09:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added my position on the topic as well as some tentative suggestions as to how to resolve the dispute. I hope this all seems reasonable and ask that people comment on any unreasonableness in my suggestions. Not sure what the procedure is now, please advise. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Constructed language/Natural language, artificial language ...

Fände es interessant (soweit es die Zeit erlaubt) das angesprochene Thema mal auf deutsch zu besprechen. Bis dahin beste Grüße nach Zürich! --Titbit 16:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Islam poll

What are you doing dab? You can't deny registered users the right to vote. It says so in the rulebook. Stop this. Wikipedia is not the State of Florida. --Zeno of Elea 01:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dab, you are wrong. Every registered user has the right to vote in user surveys and in VfD polls, even if they are new users. This "400 edits or more" policy is not part of Wikipedia policy, it's something that you made up. Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the survey itself, and no such agreements were made by consensus prior to polling. It already is a strawpoll, and removing the votes of registered users only makes it a rigged strawpoll. --Zeno of Elea 13:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary mudslinging

This was one of your more unproductive edits. What started out as a proposal for a ceasefire you managed to turn into misdirected mudslinging. The big arguments on eras were between slrubenstein and jguk and a few personal attack afficionados on the one hand, and between jguk and MPerel and editors of Islam- and Persia-related articles on the other. The common factor was jguk, not jayjg. Get the facts straight before naming names. That aside, naming names in that forum was inappropriate. Even jguk managed to stick to the subject. Tomer ^TALK 10:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Done [4]. I hope you'll be back from your break soon.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 13:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Vote of Confidence

Hi dab, Subramanian ^talk here. I noticed that some of us Hindus are somewhat harsh to you and your contributions. Well, I came here to say that I find them to be very good, and that most of the time we agree. So thank you. It will be good for all of us if you keep contributing to all Hindu-related articles. Shanti, Subramanian ^talk 20:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You´re welcome. I meant it. Subramanian ^talk 16:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Letting you know

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:MANOS Chronographos 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, not only did it take an hour of my time, but it also took that idiot reporting me for ... vandalism (!) six times (!!!), the admins ignored my properly redone 3RR violation post, and some clueless newbie admin profusely and abjectly apologized to the idiot because that admin, in all his infinite wisdom, glanced at the XMK talk page and realized that the idiot was "right"! Is it only my impression, that the whole WP thing is too amateurish? Chronographos 14:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I never stated my support for any side of the argument or if anyone was right; I only tried to help MANOS present his thesis in a civil manner, offering my assistance because he asked for it. I am neutral in this discussion and do not wish to influence it at all. MANOS may choose to alter the article if he isn't satisfied within his time limit, but please realize that I don't endorse any action he has taken or may take. Thanks, Sango123 19:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Dbachmann. According to MANOS, "I support my thesis with facts. I gave reliable sources like Britannica. I even gave 10 links to support that the lexicon was Greek. I even use logic (Greek words, alphabetical order etc)." Though I know very little about the ancient Macedonian language, I thought that would be sufficient for a valid argument. Sango123 20:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

If u think u are smart why don't u prove I'm wrong? Guess what? U can't. So u are the moron, that not only think that he is right, but he doesn't even try to prove it. :-P
Also keep in mind that I report u once. I just modified the reason. ;)
If u believe that my thesis is wrong, plz go to Ancient Macedonian language talk page. Be my guest. ;)
MANOS 17:42, 30 July 2005

Sango, don't forget the following:

Hesiod said they were Greeks.
Hellanicus said they were Greeks.
Both said they were speaking Greek (Aeolian)
Macedons said they were Greeks
The rest Greeks said they were Greeks
They were participating in Olympic Games
Persians said they were Greeks
Not a single evidence proving the opposite

I post this 3 times. No one even tried to support the opposite. Do u need more proofs?
MANOS

Any objection about the above 8 facts? :-P
MANOS

Yeah, right :-PPP

Give me a break. If u want to post propaganda, u have the OK from me. Be my guest. But don't dare to tell me that I'm wrong. Why don't u try to explain what Hesiod said or Hellanicus or Herodotus or all the rest great men in ancient times. If u want to lie urself... no problem. Believe anything u want. But don't tell me that I have to post scholarly opinions. Then I guess that I can say that Macedons were Albanians or Homer was Turk. These are opinions by scholars. So don't bullshitting me. U can even see the truth in the propagandistic sites. The truth is so easy to be seen. I don't care about about a forum. That is wikipedia. A huge forum. I can't even post the correct number of Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs in Greece. I show an url with the official 2001 census... but they don't care. So plz... I'm not a fool. Don't tell me that u wont explain me anything and I should go to a library and read. If u believe u are right why don't u explain me what Hesiod said... just Hesiod. Not anyone else. I guess u can't. So stop bull**** me.

Have a nice day,
MANOS

o my, I see you are not only wrong, you are also annoying. Try a spellchecker, I am not inclined to converse in leet speech. Also, if Wikipedia is so bad, why don't you just take your superiority elsewhere, the net is wide. dab (ᛏ) 07:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Try a spellchecker"
I did. No mistakes. Do u mean about the "net-language"? u, urself, plz??
I would, if u didn't mock me.<bt> Go here and explain urself: Talk:Ancient_Macedonian_language
MANOS

Dab-Bad

hell, no, my initials spell the inverse of bad. I'm the good guy Wiglaf, plz believe me, don't block me plz!!11 :p dab (ᛏ) 19:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I had such a good laugh when I read MANOS' post that I was thinking of telling you about it :), because it could also be interpreted as stating you're the opposite of bad instead. Thus the absurdity.--Wiglaf 19:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Phylogenic chart on race page

I am going through the race page and trying to get citations for everything. There's not much info on the chart you created and added. Can you send the bibliographic details for your source to me, or add it as a caption? Thanks! Jokestress 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! Because the article is on race, my interest is the last set of branches (in the green shading) and how they were derived. As a lay reader, I don't really know what the chart is supposed to mean. Since visual representations are powerful persuaders (they appear very objective and scientific), I want to include a caption so if someone just read the chart and caption, they would know the chart's source and what it signified, especially in relation to the entire article. Any thoughts on a nice, succinct caption that explains the race aspect? Jokestress 07:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Q. on an image

See my note here. My source are the maps found in Encyclopedia of IE culture. --FourthAve 00:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we are fighting, but rather agreeing. And I would like to be corrected whenever my fair-use milking of the EIEC is off-base (I have been reading this book so intently that I've caught a whopping big error on Mallory's part). Yes, I understand that EIEC's maps are reprints from articles in various journals, JIES among them (I actually subscribe to the yellow book), and that maps usually represent greatest extent towards the end and not early centers, and that some of these maps are probably in error. For Andronovo, locating Sintashta is the biggy (2000 BC --chariots!).

I will be doing more articles. I've been concentrating on the early ones first. Look at Sredny Stog culture and Chernoles culture for Urheimat-ish statements. Funnelbeaker and Tripolye are next on the list, in this instance for for revision, or just a total rewrite/move a la what I did to Corded Ware culture. Catacomb culture is as modern as I've gotten, so far.

The Indo-European template needs to be radically redone; I started to add but stopped at Globular Amphora culture when I realized how unwieldly and ugly it would become. I will likely move existing articles to reflect an "xx culture" pattern; Yamna will be soon. I'll be sweet and leave notes on the talk pages.

Wiglaf seems to approve. I assume you will too. --FourthAve 15:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. No pub domain pix, and even if I did I have no way to load them onto the net. The point about the IE template is that it will became either very very long or very very wide, and something will have to be done about it. I'll let you handle this, as I don't know the IE wiki wonks. I don't like purplish color, btw.

Peek onto my user page. The IE archaeology links are there, along with church fathers, 1911 EB articles, &c, and way down at the bottom, the start of an article about the Kurgan culture funeral rites of Patroclus. --FourthAve 18:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

PS about chariots. Beg or steal a pic of that ostrich-fan thing from King Tut's tomb. It shows a chariot: the horse is handled with a nose ring, no less. Compare to Rameses II's glorification of his charioteers. As I recall, the pic is in in Mallory's book on the IE's.--FourthAve 18:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. --FourthAve 12:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You wrote:

• am not sure this is a useful category, since it is based on a specific encyclopedia: It will artificially exclude articles that are pertinent to the subject, but do not happen to be in the EIEC. Why not call it Category:Indo-European culture? dab (ᛏ) 08:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you think best. But I have been using the category EIEC already. I see it shows up as a sub-cat of category Indo-European, which I routinely add. Mainly, it's a way to document what articles use material from this work -- away from my user page. I discover as I do articles, I glean more information that can enhance extant articles, in particular, in co-ordinating antecesor, successor and co-extensive and/or contemporaneous cultures. As an example, reading the EIEC's articles on the Globular Amphora, Baden and Corded Ware cultures in isolation, you'd be hard pressed to realize all three are contemporaneous, and that the first two overlap the third.

On a related subject, do any of the other-languaged wikipediae have an article on the Ertebölle culture? EIEC don't. --FourthAve 17:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I subsequently looked into the German wiki, and they do have an article. Sent it thru babalfish; I'd make a mess of it. Bitte! --FourthAve 20:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As for pix, I don't have a scanner. I recall seeing the Sintashta chariot somewhere in EIEC. I don't quite understand your notes, but I think you are saying I can fair use the images in EIEC for wiki?

I am also confused by the WP:CFD reference. Do what you think best. I created the category.--FourthAve 20:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you for vote of confidence on my RFA.
Barnstar for toilet paper?
Be wise,
Economize
Use your toilet paper twice!--Jondel 00:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

After the events following the unprotection of Islamophobia Germen has subsequently been blocked for breaking the 3RR (although he was later unblocked). Since then Germen has unilaterally edited Islamophobia regardless of mediation and deleted even your edits. Because of this I feel that mediation has now failed and would ask confirmation from you of this. Kim Brunning has asked for this confirmation from you[5]. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I admit I did list Germen for 3RR a little hastily (although, I feel, legitimately) but I did give him warning that he was reverting my edits long before he made his fourth revert. To be honest, germen was modifying the article regardelss, making hundreds of edits, and I thought having him blocked for 24 hours might cool him off. He was also asked to back off from the page by other editors including yourself.

We have both agreed to the soft ban mentioned, but I would assume that Germen would wish to continue mediation. I do feel he is completely ignoring agreement made in mediation and that a week of mediation seems to have had no influence of Germen's actual edits once the page was unprotected. -Axon (talk|contribs) 16:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not edit the islamophobia page since I was unbanned, so I would like to cite this ridiculous accusation as another example of Axons sorry touch with reality. I did honor my part of the deal and I ask Axon to apologize for this clear instance of baseless slander. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Long Sword

It is not a replica of any sort a longsword does not have to be famous why does it have to be a museum piece It may look blurred because I took a picture of a blade that is reflective Dudtz 8/4/05 12:37 PM EST

You should not make assumptions about what kind of camera someone uses The hilt and the prommel are also reflective I am a movie/anamation producer, It is very difficult to film/take a picture of a reflective surface Dudtz 8/4/05 1:03 PM EST

The sword was on a bed when I took the picture the wrinkles in the bed might have confused you. The manufactuer was a small Swordsmith in Spain. "I don't care too much, the articles are all in a mess anyway, and we'll need to rearrange them somehow." well then if you don't care then why are you talking about it anyway. Dudtz 8/04/05 1:23 PM EST

because the image is a lo-res snapshot of your touristy sword replica lying in your bed. I'm sorry, but the image isn't really any use at all. dab (ᛏ) 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I would recomend a 3rd party oppinion on this matter In any case,are you a good sword fighter? I would like to see you try to defeat me in atlest a fencing match Dudtz 8/5/05 12:45 PM EST

Fencers don't have the best grapical skills? my uncle does Fencing very often His job is an animation teacher he has worked on 2 NFL commercials If I were you, I would be careful about how I judge people Dudtz 8/5/05 1:09 PM EST

sorry, I was just pulling your leg. Silly mood. Come over to Zurich, and we can find manly ways to beat out the layout of the longsword article between us. You challenged me to a duel, mate, you'd have to expect some lip from me. dab (ᛏ) 17:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You just seem like you want to put your picture up or get rid of mine just because it doesn't live up to your standards. I put a picture there so people can see what one looks like because there was no picture there you come by the next day or whatever and put up your oversized Swiss Army Knife(That is a joke/exaggeration) It lives up to the definition of a long sword so why not diplay it Dudtz 8/5/05 1:21 PM EST

sounds alright Dudtz 8/5/05 1:40 PM EST

Indian subcontinent

I notice that you merged the article on Indian subcontinent with South Asia. Well, as far I know, South Asia is much larger than the Indian subcontinent. The land lying south of the Himalayas is termed as the Indian subcontinent whereas the South Asia includes Afghanistan and Tibet apart from the Indian subcontinent. Also note, that while Burma is part of the Indian subcontinent, it lies in SE Asia and not South Asia. All I want to say is that, Indian SUBCONTINENT and South Asia are two different terms and merging the two articles, perhaps was not a good idea. Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 04:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that most of the Indian Subcontinent lies in South Asia, doesn't mean that the 2 articles are merged. The Indian Subcontinent is called so because it has completely different geography, geology, topography, culture, climatic conditions from the rest of Asia earning the name Subcontinent. Its called a subcontinent because its size is too small to be called a Continent. South Asia is the southern part of the Continent of Asia (its very much a geographical term not an American term) while the Indian Subcontinent is a Subcontinent lying in southern Asia. Take for example the Indo-China Peninsula, most of it lies in SE Asia, now that doesn't mean the articles on both of them are merged. Many regions in South Asia, for ex Afghanistan and Tibet, are not a part of the Indian Subcontinent. Their climatic and geological characteristics are similar to that of Central Asia. South Asia and the Indian Subcontinent are two different geographical terms and should not be mixed up. Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 07:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what has SAARC and British India got to do with this. They are political terms while Indian Subcontinent is a geographical one. Ok, even if we you consider S.Asia to be a political term, why mix Indian Subcontinent and S.Asia. There are certain countries which make up S.Asia while there are certain geographical characteristics which makes the land lying south of the Himalayas a Subcontinent. By merging the 2 topics, you are putting the Indian Subcontinent in the same category as that of the Western Europe and the SE Asia which is wrong. Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 07:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

The point about rules is that they're for everyone; we can't say: "I approve of you, so you can break the rule, but not of you, so you can't." Recreating VfDed articles is something that I've fought against when it was white supremacists, justifying what I did on the NPoV ground that it was Wikipedia policy; how could I do that and let someone else go against the policy?

I should add that Wikipedia is at the moment swarming with Islamophobes, and some of Ed Poor's comments, at least, had an unpleasantly familiar ring. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the usual policy concerning VfDs is that, when they result in a delete vote, then they shouldn't be created either as redirects or articles without discussion. A new article with the same name is ruled out because a mere disagreement over content shouldn't be grounds for deleting, and a redirect because one can vote "merge & redirect". I don't doubt your sincerity in this, I should say, or your innocence of any ill intention. It's justthat, as I said above, however excessively bureaucratic it might seem in this case, I believe that the rule should be applied in all cases, or it becomes devalued (shades of Plato's "Crito").

I've tried to make myself clear at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Criticism of Islam 2.0. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely about the troll (though his involvement is another reason to be scrupulous about things). I'll not press you to drink hemlock if you don't do the same if most people disagree with me on this... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Artistic languages

I just saw all the improvements you made to the Artistic languages and related stuff. Excellent work! Cheers, --IJzeren Jan 10:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia

I'll have to ask you something - what exactly makes you think that the current article is OK and supported by academic sources, while I_sterbinski's edits are random crackpot theories? I don't agree on some of his points, but I'm quite concerned about your non-critical view of the current article, and I am under impression that you are attributing the article to the mainstream view.

IMHO, the article is far far from NPOV. The very naming of Macedonians as "Macedonian Slavs" (which they consider offensive) is a direct violation of the NPOV policy and it is a priori giving a distorted view of the entire dispute. Please see these resources provided by the neutral administrator (Zocky). They are vandalized a bit by Greek users, but they still do provide a striking evidence how every major media outlet, encylopedia, international institution refers to Macedonians as Macedonians (not Macedonian Slavs). The mainstream view does not refer to them as "Macedonian Slavs", and therefore the current article is actually accepting random crackpot theories on fundamental questions (the identity of the inhabitants of RoM). Ironically, there is a sentence in it claiming that "Macedonians Slavs are sometimes referred to as Macedonians". That is how much the article is accurate.

I would quote ChrisO, who recently won a barnstar for his work on NPOV in passionate national disputes: Wikipedia has become seriously inconsistent with common usage and other reference sources by not using the Macedonians' own term to describe themselves. Of course, we both agree that difference between them, Ancient Macedonians and the other Macedonians that use the term as a regional identifier (Greeks, Bulgarians), by dissambiguating names such as Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nationality) etc. Why Wikipedia still refers to Macedonians as "Macedonian Slavs", after a poll that was obviously decided on ethnic lines, is a great mystery to me. --FlavrSavr 14:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Language

MUCH better. Nice work.--demonburrito 18:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

I just added a new external link to the jihad article, which I want recommend to you. It's the What Does Jihad Mean? article by Douglas E. Streusand. The article is in my opinion biased towards the liberal/apologist side of this issue, but it is still a high quality article, written by an expert. The article sure did help me to get some facts straight, so if you got time for it, I recommend that you read it. It's not very long, and pretty much straight-to-the-point. -- Karl Meier 18:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that you liked the article, and I also agree that the history of militant jihad is indeed a very interesting subject. However, in my opinon it is also a very large subject, that should not be included in the "Jihad as warfare" section, which in my opinion should be a short, concise introduction to the broad, general concept of militant Jihad. The history of jihad is a huge subject, that (if we are going to write about it) should properly be an article of it's own. We could then maybe summarize the content of that article, in a new section in on jihad article. However, as it is now, where we just include one broken piece from the long and complicated history of militant jihad, I don't think we help our readers to really understand this subject. As it is now, the information regarding our friend Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami without any real background information about the whole history of militant jihad, I think is more likely to just confuse the reader of the article. Also, regarding the current discussion at the jihad articles talkpage, let's all try to calm down a bit. Frankly, it looks like bar brawl right now! -- Karl Meier 11:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added my response to the jihad articles discussion page -- Karl Meier 17:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Pointy hat? How do you come up with such a subject? And it's a good, solid article already... Wikipedia at it's best! :o) About the Jihad article, I'll try to come up with something regarding a historical section, but I am afraid I don't got time for it today, or the next few days. For me, it'll take a lot of research, if I am not going to get myself into deep water when writing about something that complicated, and my limited English skills doesn't help eighter. I'll properly start writing the section this coming weekend, if no one object to the expansion with such a section. -- Karl Meier 17:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex

Could you please answer my question on Talk:Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex? --Bender235 08:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Islam / reverting

After Slim unprotected Islam (but this goes for any Islam-related article) an anonymous editor on his second edit added some not so good edits (but not exactly vandalism). I reverted it but I wanted to clarify if that was proper since reverting is typically not the best thing to do when it can be avoided. I just want your opinion on this. Thanks. gren グレン 17:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Clones

I have strong reasons to believe that User:Birkemaal and User:VMORO, i.e. the main editors of Demographic history of Macedonia, are the same person. Check Birkelmaal's contributions and discussion page to see what I mean. If that's the case, then you see for yourself how "neutral" this article is, and many people will owe me an apology. You could use your admin privileges to verify their IP range and country of origin. Miskin 19:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Bronze stuff

Yeah, Wikipedia is a drug. I have many times considered leaving Wikipedia forever, but I realize that it is too much fun :).--Wiglaf 20:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Nablus

Can you please take a look at Guy Montag's 3RR violation [6]? He keeps violating it the same way and no-one is blocking him for it.Heraclius 05:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Nablus - however, there are still many issues to be worked out, and User:Willmcw locked the site 2 days ago for 24 hours until things were sorted out on the discussion page. They were not, and things seem to be getting worse, so I just asked him to lock it again indefinitely until things are settled. Since I don't think he's awake yet (different time zone), would you mind locking the page at the point where you added your edits? I hope you will be agreeable. Thank you. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops - I realized as soon as I posted the message above that you probably wouldn't be able to because you've edited the site. Sorry about that. Let's hope this thing works out. Thank you. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

The mop is mine!

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion ^talk 07:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proto-Language

I think there is some terminological difficulty regarding Ur-, Proto- and Common -- as in Common Germanic redirecting to Proto-Germanic. As I understand it, Common X would refer to the period of time (couple of centuries) before a division, while Proto- refers to the exact latest stage (if there is such a thing) when the languages took different path. In this sense, Proto-Norse would have been spoken at some point around 800, while "Common Norse" or "Common North Germanic", say, from 200 to 800? dab (ᛏ) 09:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Proto-Norse is probably not the best name for the Germanic language of Scandinavia 1 AD-800 AD. If you check the article Proto-Norse, there is a list of alternative names that are current. You can choose the one you think fits best and rename it.--Wiglaf 09:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

hm, yes, but the Proto-Norse article pretends that the terms are all synonymous, while my point is that there are actually differences in meaning. dab (ᛏ) 09:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the difference has escaped me. I trust you to do the necessary terminological separations, if you want to :). I have to quit Wikipedia until this evening.--Wiglaf 09:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Corded ware culture

Hi Dab. There is something that bugs me, and that I have to ask you about. Fourthavenue has removed the Tarpan from the Corded ware article and assigns it to the non-IE "Old Europe". I have a very hard time swallowing this, since the corded ware culture was a typical IE culture using horses, husbandry and individualistic graves (the preceding culture used matrilocal communal graves). It is also the only culture that I know of which conventiently explains the introduction of proto-IE into Scandinavia.--Wiglaf 11:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Break

Yes, I intended to take a break, but writing the test for the students went much faster than expected. Moreover, it is very hard writing on the dissertation, when I have waited two months for my supervisor to read the last version. In such situations Wikipedia is so attracting.--Wiglaf 11:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

PS, I will have a look into the tarpan, but first I will write an article on the Nordic Bronze Age, relating to your work on the sun chariot.--Wiglaf 12:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Dab, thank you! I appreciate your vote on my RfA! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Early Old Norse texts

Hi Dab, I saw your question on the Old Norse talkpage and that Haukurth had given you a good answer. I'd just like to add that in addition to the Rök Runestone (which has a substantial text), there are several substantial poems that were preserved in oral form from the 9th century. According to the linguists, the dating is verifiable, see e.g. Ynglingatal for a discussion on the dating.--Wiglaf 18:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proto-Norse

Hi Dab, I have verified the name of North Germanic 1AD-800AD, and apparently a common name is Primitive Norse. However, Proto-Norse is also current as you can see in this link.--Wiglaf 07:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks very much for the RfA support. Happy editing - looks like you've got some pretty impressive work under your belt there. Cheers, Slac speak up! 21:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Map

Excellent map Dab on the Corded Ware Culture! Would you mind if I change the map slightly in Scandinavia?--Wiglaf 07:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, it would not be possible to refer to EIEC, if I did. It is just annoying for me to see that the Corded Ware culture in Närke that I wrote a paper on once is not included, but that is EIEC's fault, not yours.--Wiglaf 08:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, so if the EIEC map is quite inexact, I will use what I know from my Nordic archaeology studies :).--Wiglaf 08:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)