Misplaced Pages

FleetCommand, do you understand WP:BRD? You have now made a perfect example of "D", you have discussed your points. Now I agree with points 1-3, but I have reservations about points 4, 5. This is progress: you would now have sucessfully negotiated the changes you propose in 1-3. This is how Misplaced Pages works. I do not understand your sulking "I won't touch the article again". After we have agreed on certain edits you proposed, I do not see why you should not proceed to making them. After that, we would look at your points 4 and 5 and see if we can come up with a solution that safisfies us both. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please block me again

3 months this time please. I'll thank you for it. PiCo (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

try to be reasonable. And try to take responsibility for your actions -- as you would have to in real life too. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable, moi? And, (and this really is why I want to leave Misplaced Pages), could you please have a look at Creation according to Genesis - Lisa is trying to push a very hard-line Orthodox Jewish pov on it, one totally out of touch with mainstream Biblical scholarship. Ban her, ban me, I don't care. I'm out of here. PiCo (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We have three million articles here, if you feel biblical scholarship articles are bad for your personal equilibrium, you should just focus your attention elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:History of Iran

Take a look at the history of this template. User:Babakexorramdin insists on changing the date format and preserving a mistake (for the date of the collapse of Parthian Empire). It's meaningless to argue with him because his arguments (in his edit summaries) are just some absurd personal attacks (and apparently his only reason for doing those edits is reverting my edit, without looking carefully at what it is). I should also mention that his absurd personal attacks are not limited to that page (you can see another example here and here). Alefbe (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the Parthian empire began before Chirst and ended after Christ. It is funny that mr. Alefbe changes the BC (or BCE as he likes it more) with CE. Mr. Alefbe is simply wrong. period, basta, finitto.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Abut personal attacks: mr. Alefbe insists on reverting all my edits, eventhough all other users agree with me. Strangely all his problems with me are about the Iranian history which he tries to falsify. What I do is simply restiring his distortions to the former edits which were generally accepted. It seems that Alefbe has an obsession to revert all my edits. This he does also in the Persian wikipedia, where he has many enemies. No wonder!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

your edit makes out that the Parthian Empire lasted for all of 22 years. Take a minute to appreciate that you made a mistake, Babakexorramdin, and then consider apologizing to Alefbe. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say that. You are confusing Alefbe's edit with mine. I say that Parthian empire existed from 248 BC until 226 AD, what Alefbe is saying is that it existed from 247 AD (or as he says CE) - until 224 AD (or as he calls it CE). It is Alefbe who is suggesting that it existed only MINUS 23 years! Does it makes sense?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Dab, you've caught a live one... rudra (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry, Babakexorramdin, it is impossible to have a coherent discussion below a certain level of cognitiive potential. I recommend you consider simple:, or perhaps drop the idea of contributing to an encyclopedia altogether. --dab (𒁳) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

minaret controversy in Switzerland

about your"Well, we now have officials of Turkey and Iran(!) complaining about the ban. I ask you. This is involuntary comedy. I can see western countries criticizing Switzerland for falling short.."

There are no persecution(except KSA due to its status similar with the Vatican)against churches in "muslim majority" countries.

Christianity is a semitic monothesit abrahamic religion with semitic prophet(Jesus) and anatolian semitic "creator"(saul of tarsus)same as islam,also first built churches were in semit lands and anatolia not in Switzerland,christianity original texts were in semitic aramaic not in Swiss German...

Islam and muslims believe in Jesus and (real)christianity so they can not persecute their own faith/prophet/culture/civilisation and there are thousand of chucrhces with ringing bells in "muslim majority" countries whereas countries like Greece completly banned the construction of mosques in Athina(so there is far more islam persecution in this country than in Switzerland).

Turkey is a secular country where all religions have their whole rights(such as construction of churches with ringing bells) in Iran too,there is religious freedom for jews,christians,zoroastrians.

Whereas it's the "western democracies" like France,Greece which are banning construction of mosques or making the life harder for the ones who want to construct mosques.

"Well, we now have officials of Turkey and Iran(!) complaining about the ban. I ask you. This is involuntary comedy. I can see western countries criticizing Switzerland for falling short of western secularism, but to have an Islamic theocracy deposit official notes of protest over the minaret ban is simply absurd" dab said

best regards

Humanbyrace (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Humanbyrace (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

wow. You quite apparently live in a dream world. By your logic you can also "prove" that the crusades never happened, because after all Christianity teaches to "love thy neighbour" and wouuld never condone religious war, so it follows that no pope would ever command any military action. --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was impossible to build a new mosque in Athens. On the other hand it also seems to be impossible to build a new church in Turkey: "All the exponents of these minorities – lead by the patriarch of Constantinople and the Catholic bishops – are strongly in favor of Turkey's entry into Europe, which would produce a decisive improvement in their living conditions. Apart from lacking legal recognition, in fact, these minorities are prevented from constructing, and even from restoring, their places of worship, from possessing buildings and land, and from opening schools. Christians are forbidden from taking up some offices and professions, particularly in the military." Hans Adler 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

what people from the, ahem, near to middle east fail to understand is that in Western Europe, authorities actually tend to do what the constitution and the laws says they are supposed to do. This is a concept completely unfamiliar to anyone from, say, southeast of Zagreb. No, you won't be able to build any churches in Turkey, no matter what you do, not because the Turkish constitution outlaws churches, but simply because the officials won't let you.

No, I am not going to document this for you. If you cannot be bothered to research items as painfully obvious as religious discriminaion in Iran, I won't waste my breath on you. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

about the Shire (tolkien) and T. H. White

Sorry for my bad english, I am a french wikipedian, and I speak so bad your language. In 2007, you added that Tolkien's Shire was inspired by T. H. White, and I would like to know the origin of this assumption, for the french article. Thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the entire paragraph summarizes the reference I give in this very edit, Tom Shippey, Tolkien and the West Midlands: The Roots of Romance, Lembas Extra (1995), reprinted in Roots and Branches, Walking Tree Publishers (2007). --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious

Dab, I've noticed that you often (always ?) start new comments on talk pages with an uncapitalized letter, except when the first word is I. Is this just a personal quirk, or a deliberate choice ? Just curious. Abecedare (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

i'm just negligent sometimes :op --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ephebophilia article

Hello, Dbachmann. I tweaked your edit to the Ephebophilia article. Since the term does not only mean an adult homosexual male's sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescent males, I do not feel that it should be defined as that right off the bat. I am not even sure if the term was originally only restricted to that definition. Pederasty's definition is restricted to male-male sexual relationships, but not ephebophilia. And as for the other stuff: The age range generally being set at 15-19 is sourced and has been discussed extensively on the talk page. Stressing in the lead that ephebophilia is about the sexual preference was also discussed on the talk page. In this case, it is important that people do not confuse attraction (an older adult male finding an 18-year-old girl sexually attractive) with preference (an older adult male sexually preferring girls around 18 years old). Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

pure weasling. The term does mean "an adult homosexual male's sexual preference for adolescent males". The weasling about "mid-to-late" and the artificial "attraction" vs. "preference" is obviously agenda-driven cosmetics, I must assume in an attempt to make "ephebophilia" more palatable to the general public. It's not honest, and certainly not neutral or detached, it's subtle pov-pushing. I have no opinion on whether ephebophilia, or homosexuality for that matter, is "good" or "bad" (it's either, depending on your context, it is "good" in Pericles' Athens, but it is "bad" in Calvin's Geneva), but I do feel strongly that it is our responsibility to put the facts on the table without weasling or opaque embellishment, and let the readers judge for themselves. But I have given up on patrolling homosexuality articles for neutrality. It is difficult enough to impose intellectual honesty at "positive discrimination" taboos like Afrocentrism, it is positively impossible with homosexuality topics. Seriously, it is my impression that if there is one cabal at Misplaced Pages, this is it. --dab (𒁳) 08:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

dab: You're mistaken. The -philia terms are orthogonal to the -philia terms. Heterosexual males may be attracted to children (pedophilia), to pubescents (hebephilia), or to adolescents (ephebophilia), just as homosexual males may be. The same can be true of females' attractions, thus for example the notorious cases of female teachers and pubescent/adolescent male students. Such terms certainly apply in homosexual relationships between adults and minors; however, they also apply in heterosexual relationships — the classic fictional example being Lolita. (And Flyer22's distinction between "attraction" and "preference" is valid.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So I am "mistaken" because "The -philia terms are orthogonal to the -philia terms." In whose book, I ask? The terminology you suggest may exist, but my point is that it is a construct of the 1990s, and of a subculture aiming at prescribing politically correct terminology not for itself but for everyone.

An ephebos is a male adolescent. A paidos is a male child. If people take these terms and bend them out of recognition because they want to construct an "orthogonal" terminology, that's their hobby but it doesn't mean anyone has to follow their definitions. As for the difference between attraction and preference in sexual relations, I would ask you to clarify. Feeling sexually "attracted" is the same as experiencing a "preference" for whoever one is attracted to. Human sexual preference isn't an orthogonal coordinate system where every quadrant is equally valid. It is a bell curve. WP:DUE prescribes how we deal with covering Gaussian distributions: the bell curve's fringes need to be treated for what they are, and cannot be allowed to dominate coverage just because they exist.

Misplaced Pages is drowned in categories titled "LGBT this" and "LGBT that". Now LGBT is a 1990s neologism used within a certain subculture. It isn't in any way clear that it can be treated as an objective term. You can't just coin initialisms and then treat the resulting concept as an objective entity. To pick a crass example, in the interest of clarity, how about I claim "JMMT" means "Jews, Muslims, Marxists and Terrorists" and then I go and create articles on "JMMT people"? Ok, so LGBT wasn't coined on-wiki, but it is still an idiosyncratic term used for less than 20 years within a certain subculture. Misplaced Pages cannot (or at least, should not, even though policy has been defeated by the lobby) use this term as it were objectively. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I am not quite grasping what you mean. Ephebophilia applies to mid-to-late adolescent girls as well; for example, men who sexually prefer mid-to-late adolescent girls. And it applies to women, as in women who may have a sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescent boys (though this is rare, just as there being female pedophiles is rare). It is not agenda-driven to differentiate between attraction and preference. There is a difference between a man finding a 17 or 18-year-old girl sexually attractive (which happens quite often among normal men) and one who has or seemingly has a sexual preference for girls that young (such as Hugh Hefner; though I would not diagnose Hugh Hefner as an ephebophile quite yet, he does love taking up with 18-year-old girls).

It is honest to distinguish in this case. We distinguish between adolescents and mid-to-late adolescents, because being sexually attracted to 15 to 19-year-olds is not the same thing as being sexually attracted to an 11-year-old adolescent, for example; people as young as 11 have also been called adolescent. We distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual preference for the reasons I just stated above. Right now, there are a lot of women (and I do mean women over 20 and up) who are sexually attracted to 17-year-old Twilight: New Moon star Taylor Lautner; most of these women openly admit it. Should we call these women ephebophiles simply because they find this guy "hot"? Just because they find this 17-year-old "hot" does not mean that they have a sexual preference for guys this young. Sexual attraction to late teenagers is common among older adults, seeing as plenty of late adolescents look the same age-wise as early 20-somethings, but most would rather not go after late teenagers romantically/sexually due to the possible illegality, the social ridicule they would most likely face or because of late teenagers being on a different mental level than they are (or all of the bove). Maybe even because of their moral feelings about it. A person feeling sexually "attracted" to someone is not necessarily the same thing as that person experiencing a "preference" for that someone. A person may be sexually attracted to someone but not have a preference for that person or that type of person.

As for homosexuality and LGBT articles on Misplaced Pages, I have no comment. If you feel that you have been wrongly treated on those matters here, I am sorry for that. Your thoughts should be heard as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"I" have not been treated. The topic has been treated, with systemic bias. This happens if a particular lobby is too strong on the wiki. This isn't my project, I'm just saying. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

dab, in this respect etymology does not determine definition: the gender of the Greek words ephebos and paidos has not set the gender of the English words ephebophilia and pedophilia; there is no separate "female form" of these -philias; a man (or woman) who sexually prefers children is called a "pedophile" whether he seeks out young boys or young girls; likewise for the terms referring to higher ages. The situation may be otherwise in German, but in English these -philias refer solely to an age preference, with no overtones of gender preference, nor implication of the patient's gender (though as Flyer22 notes, most are male). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

well, usage defines meaning. But usage is particular to interest groups. For example, pedophilia activists prefer the term "childlove". Does that mean that the term "childlove" now has the definition "pedophilia"? No. What counts is mainstream usage. "NPOV" doesn't mean Misplaced Pages is a propaganda platform to all sorts of fringe interest groups, although of course they keep trying.

so, luckily "ephebophilia" has an OED entry.

OED's definition is "sexual attraction in adults to adolescents, esp. homosexual attraction to adolescent males." I.e. the correct original (etymological) meaning is noted as the especial (primary) application of the term. Ephebophilia is sexual attraction in adults to adolescents. De facto this refers primarily to the male homosexual case. Period. OED also notes the term is a 1960s coinage. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then OED would appear to be unaware of earlier usage cited on-Wiki. "Especially" is not "only", so Flyer22's point is sustained. An older adult male whose primary attraction is to adolescent females, or an older adult female whose primary attraction is to adolescent males, would still meet the definition. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, you can of course also purposedly ignore my point. The point is that "ephebophilia" is to 95% a topic of male homosexuality. There may be 5% of other stuff subsumed under the definition, but that's marginal. --dab (𒁳) 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the stats of sexual assaults on children and adolescents — females still being predominant targets — the phenomenon (as distinct from the "topic") still seems primarily heterosexual. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, have you ever heard a sexual assault on a girl described as "ephebophilia"? That's simply not what the word means. Please try to be reasonable. --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No more than it would be "pedophilia", or than man-rape would be "homophilia"; no, the -philia is the preference, the primary attraction, and sexual assault stats on children and adolescents by gender of victim would only indicate that females are still the preferred targets — thus still reflecting predominantly heterosexual drives. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

well, yes. I have no idea why you keep talking about sexual assault. Ephebophilia, or any other -philia, is about "preference" or "attraction", not assault. The "drive", not the act. It goes without saying that it is possible to withstand any sort of drive if one is motivated enough to withstand it and if one has the necessary spine. This isn't under discussion at all. What is under discussion is the definition of "ephebophilia" as essentially a topic of homosexuality, especially male homosexuality. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

look, if you want to play at being smart, find somebody else to do it with. You are being completely incoherent, nothing of what you say has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is the word meaning of "ephebophilia", and I assume you are trolling. Once you are done feeling coy, feel free to come back and resume this as a discussion between grown-up encyclopedists. --dab (𒁳) 16:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No trolling involved, dab. For clarity: Sexual attraction in adults to adolescents (the OED's primary definition) is, as Flyer22 noted at the top of the thread, not only, not restricted to, homosexuality. The word "ephebophilia" may be more often ("especially") used in that context, but not exclusively. The phenomenon itself, the sexual attraction, certainly has no such restriction. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle, you keep ignoring my point. So you read somewhere that "ephebophilia" means "sexual attraction to late adolescents (15-19 y.o.) in adults". I am saying that this isn't how the term is used. There are hundreds of millions of adult men who feel "attracted" to legal pornography involving 18-19 year old females. Google this. I hereby ask you to provide any real life example where this attraction is described as "ephebophilia". Seriously, at long last, have you no sense of proportion? --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

dab, "somewhere"? I quoted "Sexual attraction in adults to adolescents" from your quote of the OED definition. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that it's taken me so long to reply. Dbachmann, one reason men finding 18 to 19-year-women sexually attractive would not be called ephebophilia is because the mere sexual attraction to people of those ages is not ephebophilia. As stated before, ephebophilia is about the sexual preference. That is why we stress it in the lead, so that people will know that it is not correct to go around calling an older adult an ephebophile simply because that older adult found a mid to late adolescent sexually attractive. There is also the fact that the terms "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia" are not in wide-spread use, even among psychologists. This does not mean that psychologists call all of this pedophilia; most of them know what pedophilia truly is. It is rather that hebephilia and ephebophilia have not been taken as seriously by psychologists and sexologists. Recently, though, hebephilia has come under fire, as in debate about whether it should be listed as a psychological disorder; the Hebephilia article's lead has recently been altered to display this.

Basically, Dbachmann, though the general public is mostly unaware of these two terms, researchers do use them, and they are needed to describe the sexual preferences for each of these age groups (though hebephilia sometimes blends with ephebophilia; for example, plenty of 15 and 16-year-olds are still pubescent). Since the pedophilia sexual preference relates to either males or females, the hebephilia sexual preference relates to either males or females, why wouldn't the ephebophilia sexual preference also relate to either males or females? Where is the term to describe a man's sexual preference for 15 to 19-year-old girls/women...if ephebophilia does not apply there? Restricting the term as only applying to an adult homosexual male's sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescent males is not accurate. Even if the term is mostly used that way, stating it as that first in the lead makes people think that is its true definition. I don't see why it should be defined that way first. If there is a reliable medical source stating that it mostly applies to an adult homosexual male's sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescent males, then I am okay with that being at some part in the lead, but not as the first part.

As for dictionaries, we typically do not use those to initially define these three terms, because the dictionary usually does not get it exactly right. For example, the dictionary typically says that pedophilia is the adult sexual attraction for children. It does not stress the fact that pedophilia is about the preference. I note "preference," because there are plenty of people who have sexually abused prepubescent children but are not pedophiles (the Pedophilia article also touches on that). The dictionary also typically does not state "prepubescent children" in this case, even though the prepubescent part is extremely important. And for ephebophilia, the dictionary you cite states "sexual attraction in adults to adolescents." We should remember, however, that adolescence has no single definition, and has a range from ages 11 to 20. Though typically applied to teenagers, it is sometimes used to describe pre-teens and people a little out of their teens.

I do point out, though, that the Etymology section of the Ephebophilia article touches on the homosexual information you would likely want addressed, Dbachmann. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Article Tarakhāna

Hi fellow editor, I was wondering how it could be changed back to Tarkhan? The present spelling change by HFret does not reflect the actual references that still refer to it as "Tarkhan". Thanks--Sikh-History 08:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is in a poor state, but I don't think that warrant removing 3 verifiable sources that you did. Surely the best course is to expand the verifiable sources and remove text rather than vast swathes and many citations. I have restored the removed stuff for now, and am expanding on references. Also I am planning a rewrite. I think the general structure is OK, but it needs some work. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove any information that was properly referenced. The article doesn't cite any sources properly. IF you want to work on the article, your first move will be to identify sources, with ISBN and publication year. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 web refrences you removed. Also the Patwant Singh book I was in the process of finding the ISBN, to find you had removed it. This is not the way to edit. You should know better. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

web references? You mean naked urls. Please read and respect WP:RS. This is exactly the way to edit. You have no idea how many times I have heard the sulky "you should know better" you just gave me over painfully obvious things like "please cite your references". Feel free to restore information once you have a book with an ISBN, a year and a page number you can attach to the claim made. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Errr excuse me "sulky"?. That is a little personal do you not think? I really do not give a damm what you do with this article. I was asked to look at it by another editor, and I have no intention of dropping personal insults like "sulky", and yes you should know better. Happy Editing. I am out of this one. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"personal insults" indeed. You are the one who came to my talkpage telling me "I should know better" than to expect you to honour WP:CITE. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

World language article - locking

Hi, Dab.

hey, basically every 2nd day someone (usually unregistered users) try add languages to the world language list, without sources. Typical actions are to increase the number of speakers, shift a language to a higher position, add a language to the list. It assume that people are doing it out of some kind of language ego/pride. Is there a way of protecting, semi-protecting, etc this article to stop this?Utopial (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

of course. these kids think they need to push "their" language. Funny how half of the time they don't even speak it, being 2nd gen expats in the US or elsewhere in the first world. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

yeh i think you're right. anyway, it's happening every 2nd day now. does this meet the requirements for locking an article or some kind of protection? people can post their desired edits to the talk section and we can transfer them to the article if they reach consensus and r sourced. Utopial (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Kosovo

Only one question, what was agreed here (Template_talk:Politics_of_Kosovo#Request_to_remove_the_flag_2)? Flag (Coat of Arms) is still there?

All best,

Tadija (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to grant that Kosovo has made a number of important steps towards statehood since 2008, but that would be a matter for a new talkpage consensus. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rollback for Tadija

Hello Dbachmann. I imagine you have some knowledge of User:Tadija. Would you care to express an opinion at WP:Requests for permissions/Rollback#Tadija? EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Persian people

Several new IDs (which seem to be single-purpose sock-puppets of User:SorenShadow or User:R1000R1000) are edit-warring to change the topic of the page and make it a redundant copy of Persian-speakers of Iran (without getting consensus in the talk page). Also, based on the history of their talk page, it's useless to argue with them or give them any warning (because they just ignore it). Alefbe (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

sure, some amins should clamp down on these. However I don't have the time to deal with the Persians at the moment, sorry. They make a habit of turning things into nasty, drawn-out bitching sessons. ANI should deal with it, sometimes I wonder what our 1,001 admins are up to most of the time. Persian nationalism is one major troublespot at the wiki, and you should expect a dozen admins to jump to it when new wae of trolls arrive. --dab (𒁳) 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the page, and gave one of these WP:SPAs a 3RR warning. If they persist, a sock-puppet investigation should be next. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Read Talk:Persian_people#Edit_war. Alefbe (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you seem to have some issue with Persians. I am a Persian-American and you accused me of "racial musings" on another page when I was only explaining why controversial research that has been debunked should not be used in an article page. And as for Persian nationalism. There is nothing wrong with having pride in one's culture, especially since Iran has been oppressed by Arabs and Islamic fundamentalists, much as Ireland is by the British. Now, if you're talking about crazy Persians traitors and non-ethnic Iranians in Iran supporting the current regime of death. . . then I'd have to agree with you on that. You only have to look at the people to know which ethnic groups support which side. The Indo-European Iranians don't like Islam at all, and are against the regime. The mostly Arab or Arab-Iranians support the regime. A lot of people outside of Iran or Iranian communities around the world don't really understand this. Also, I wasn't aware the a Persian Wiki article was being hijacked. Are you thinking it was hijacked from outside the States? I don't understand why people would vandalize a page and put up fake references, or even take the time to to do that. I hope you see that most Persian people have great pride in our heritage, but we are also an educated people. Most of us on here know about the 3RR rule and use mediators when necessary. And just like other people, most of us don't troll around looking to vandalize on Wiki. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

please read WP:FORUM. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. If you see vandalism or trolling, by all means revert it or report it, but spare us the opinion pieces. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SorenShadow

If you have time look at the history his edits (I couldn't find even a single constructive edit from him). For some examples, see his edits in Arabic literature, Sangsari language, Proto-Indo-Iranian language and Indo-Iranians. Alefbe (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greece

Hallo there. According to A. Greece, I believe that the introductory history section should remain. ] Actually it's part of the article's scope to briefly describe what happened before 8th century B.C. (the geometric age is fully disappeared, as well as historical reference to Mycenean civilization).Alexikoua (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree I may have overdone it. Brief mention of the pre-Archaic period may be in order. Let's find a compromise. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A.V. Turicia

Hi dab

I found the above in the articles in need of post-translation cleanup. Which it needs big time if it is to stay. Of course there are others who can help out with that I just thought I would post here because you will know if it is notable or not. English is so bad I can only just make out that it is a Swiss student fraternity with 290 members. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

they're university students, right? So you should expect them to be able to come up with a decent English-language article. Otherwise this is just a merge candidate, there could be a List of Swiss student societies or something along these lines. --dab (𒁳) 16:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Will propose merge. Those sorts of solutions are often forgotten when people see a challenge for their language skills. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Kovel image

Re: > File:Spearhead of kovel.jpg: I recently found a better version (larger and more detailed) of this image (which actually dates back to 1889). Would you mind if I upload it over yours? I have the full citation on the source, so the copyright shouldn't be an issue any longer. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

sure, go ahead. --dab (𒁳) 19:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding CreativeSoul7981

He's removed sourced parts of the Semitic and Magi articles, and I've already reverted him 3 times (if he was reverted one more time he wouldn't be able to switch it back without violating the 3RR, right?). He keeps removing these parts without providing anything to justify his claims that the three studies in the Semitic article are unscientific, or that Robert Charles Zaehner is not acceptable either. I've tried asking for help at the CoI board (he mentioned that he is a Christian descended from Iranian Zoroastrians, and goes on some about how Zoroastrianism is related to Christianity when Christianity has nothing to do with the topic at hand), but the only response I've gotten is 'POV isn't CoI.' Well, he's letting his identity get in the way of the NPOV policy. Thanks for any help. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm a female and NOT a male. Nice assumption. And I have not re-edited the Magi page again if you LOOK at the discussion page. I asked SimonP (talk) to mediate until further discussion resolves this and left it alone. Yet Ian.thomson (talk) accuses me again of not following the rules. I am NOT editing the portion on the Magi page. I said what needed to be said and invited other Wiki users to this discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) is following me on Misplaced Pages and reverting my edits out of spite now. Ian.thomson (talk) is a LIAR. I asked that ONLY a inflammatory and misleading PORTION of a quote from Zaehner be removed from the page, and NOT the sources or the rest of the contribution. I think that is fair. And SimonP (talk) backed me up on this, but as of right now, it's open for discussion.

The Semitic article had a contribution that used controversial and debunked science as references. The same "immunologist" wrote in his other scientific paper that the Japanese were African. It is not accepted widely by anthropologists and other scientists. Said "researcher"'s research has been taken apart and thrown out. I linked sources to why the statements should be removed. Yet, Ian.thomson (talk) keeps coming back and reverting the edits. I'd say he is close to breaking the 3RR rule. I have no objection to the discussion, and I have invited others to participate. Can Ian.thomson (talk) say the same? Ethnic Iranians, Iranian Kurds, and Armenians are NOT a semitic people. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake to for me to assume that you were male when I had no indication of your gender either way and have encountered slightly more males on the internet, particularly this site. I apologize for that. Now, how is "It is, therefore, quite likely that the sacerdotal caste of the Magi was distinct from the Median tribe of the same name"' inflammatory? And please show us where I am lying. Or how I am following you (seeing as these two articles are the sort of thing I usually edit).... In the Talk:Magi page, SimonP said:

"That is still not a good reason for removing the Zaehner cite, rather it is an argument for adding other valid sources to better balance things. From my own understanding the subject I don't think the Zaehner view is atypical." In other words, he says leave it in, and then bring in opposing sources, which you have yet to bring.

Now, considering how you insist on SimonP's talk page that I seem "to be trying to push Iranians into the semitic category (which ethnic Iranians are not) and making claims about Magi being Ethiopian, etc" despite my comments:

"It isn't saying Iranians are totally Semitic and totally not Indo-European, it's saying that a number of Semitic and Indo-European groups show signs of being related" in the Semitic talk page, and:

"At no point does it say that the Magi were from Africa" and "Noone at any point said that the Magi were an Ethiopian group" in the Magi talk page

I'm going to assume your selective reading is probably accidental, but it is something you need to work on. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

CreativeSoul7981, people are objecting to your edits because they are bad, not because of who you are. Stop assuming anyone on Misplaced Pages is interested in your gender, your ethnicity or your genome. On Misplaced Pages, you are just a blip on people's watchlists. --dab (𒁳) 18:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet more WP weirdness

This popped up on my watchlist for some reason. I am baffled. I can't figure out how we wound up there. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

it is apparently a new feature of mediawiki -- it places the authors of the deleted category page in the edit summary for the new category when moving a category. Or something like that. It's for licencing reason, although a category page rarely contains any edits that can be considered copyrightable. Your name just pops up because you reverted an edit to the old category once. --dab (𒁳) 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dab...

Hello. Just wanna inform you that you are mentioned here. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Muzakaj

All best.

Tadija (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Article Vande Mataram

Arjun (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

--59.182.107.187 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree having the whole song and Aurobindo's translation makes no sense when the whole text is a click away at Wikisource. I removed the lyrics and translation (except the first verse which is adopted as the national song).--59.182.7.103 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bachmann-Turner Overdrive: Picture upside-down

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Sumerian_26th_c_Adab.jpg

I think that image is upside-down. It is an incised object, and not only does the lighting makes it look like it is in relief, but the cuneiform marks are backwards. I don't know how to invert this 180 degrees. Are you able to do this, Herr Bachmann?

Zelchenko (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should actually be rotated by 90 degrees, to the left. But I don't read archaic cuneiform. It would be ever so helpful if they could present a picture of the entire tablet instead of this aesthetic snapshot. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bard article

Bard is a word in current use. It's application is very much broader than the article seems to imply. A bard, to me, is a type I'm rather familiar with, my father having been president of the vaudeville union. We've had them in our house, at our table, etc., but bards are basically all-around improvisers, even ordinary people who are just up for trying anything to entertain, whether well or poorly. They're not only professionals, but amateurs, even kids you met in school. Now, the history of the word as indicated in the OED would be marvelous, but let's not forget "bard" is defined nowadays by current usage. A "bard" is synonymous with a "card". It should start from there, before launching into the origins of the word in places and on occasions. This is a hard topic to cover. Unfree (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

yes? You may want wikt:bard. The bard article is not about the word, it is, as the lead very clearly states, about the professional poets in medieval Welsh and Gaelic culture.

Nope. You're wrong. You don't own that particular permutation of four letters, whatever the lead states. You're right about what the article is about, but you can't simply insist it must not be about "bard", because no other thing can be about "bard" than "bard". That's no decision to be made, it's a simple equation. Maybe the article will evolve to include treatment of everything the topic, "bard", is about, or maybe you'll stop it, but you can't alter the sort of thing I'm talking about. The article's about whatever it's about, and what it's about now isn't adequate. The future's not ours to see. Che sera sera. Don't you see that English isn't invented by anybody; it's not like a software language, by a genius who sits up all night? Do you think the House of Lords could have done it, or should have?

The fact is, I don't even want to "contribute" to "bard", after all, not that I'm sore about anything, but that I don't think I'd be of much help. I may have said so farther down your talk page, but that was then. I can't do any more than touch up grammar or stylistics, anyway, having no books on the subject available to me at all, and having better things to do.

Please don't take this the wrong way. Read and re-read my words, if you must. It is no reflection on you, but simply upon your words, that's all. Unfree (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that there is another meaning of "bard" that deserves a Misplaced Pages article, you may want to consider disambiguation. Note that the article is already aware of derived meanings under the discussion of terminology.

No, disambiguation isn't what I want to consider, either. We'll just have to wait, whether it be to see "bard" emerge from its limitations, or to remain frozen forever in time. Unfree (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your assertion that 'A "bard" is synonymous with a "card"'.

Now, I agree with that very much. I don't think you're "reading" my meaning at all correctly. I doubt you even use "card" the way I intended, because you'd have gotten it immediately. Briefly, consider a bard. Think of what he was like when he was five. That's what a "card" is in my dictionary, somebody who has the potential, the personality, the verve, the smarts, and so on, to grow up into a real bard (using the word, "bard", as you use it). Someone who can entertain kings to their hearts' delight. Not a jester, who's always there, and witty, and funny, but may not always make the grade as the entertainment the king wants at all times. Sometimes a king would like to hear an epic poem from the good old Greek days, would he not? Or something reminiscent of Turkey, or a legend he heard mentioned, but doesn't know, or wants to hear again in a new voice, a different bard. But I ramble. On "card": we illiterates sometimes say, "Oh, he's a card!", meaning "He's kidding!", but not only that. We mean much more than that he's kidding. What we mean is more about who he is than what he's doing at he moment. To understand what I mean, you'd have to get into my skull, to know me well, because I'm no lexicographer, as I stated elsewhere, and I'm not up to such a task. My statement, not claim, was very imaginative, I think, and I'm glad I thought of it. As a claim, it fails. It goes into no Fowler, much less Wariner's. There's nothing to reason about in it, to analyze or critique. It's not a claim, but a musing, perhaps. But what it does do is remind me of Dad (the great Vaudevillian, Georgie Price) as he might have been as a kid. It was nearly half a century before my time, but my imagination's had years to work on it. And not only Dad, who would have been a bard if he were in the right place at the right time, but lots of people, both in and out of Vaudeville. Unfree (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You may also consider using the article talkpage. I do not understand why you take this to my user talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. I forgot. But perhaps here, you won't hesitate to erase it. It's just ephemera, anyway. There, you might. I don't know. I'll erase it anytime you ask, if you like. But you shouldn't have any trouble doing it once it's read, or even beforehand. I'm an ex-Usenet lover, if that means anything. I'm enjoying the exchange of ideas, aren't you? I certainly hope so. But don't consider it to be worth anything, if that's what you're thinking. Unfree (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

here is the exhaustive list of meanings listed by the OED for "bard n.:

1. An ancient Celtic order of minstrel-poets -- the topic of our bard article
2. In early Lowland Scotch used for: A strolling musician or minstrel (into which the Celtic bard had degenerated)
3. Applied to the early versifying minstrels or poets of other nations, before the use of writing, as the Old English gleeman, Scandinavian scald, etc.
4. poet. A lyric or epic poet, a ‘singer’; a poet generally. .]

you seem to be referring to the poetical usage of the term. It is unclear why we should have an article about this.

--dab (𒁳) 11:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you do misunderstand. This isn't me or you or Jimmy Wales or anybody. It's determined by Misplaced Pages's URL structure, and all that. I agree, it's unclear why it's so, and I can't direct you to the place where it says so. I'm lousy at that sort of thing, anyway. But I'm pretty sure it is so, just by thinking about it. Surely it's somewhere. And so far, we've only found four senses in one musty old dictionary. We've got a long way to go, my friend. No authoritative commission can say "just because you heard it last night on such-and-such a radio show doesn't mean anything", because it does. In fact, it's crucial to a usage, regardless of questions of "legitimacy". Now, whether a late-night comedian's usage of "bard" meets Misplaced Pages's standards for determining whether "bard" means what he, or anybody, thought it means isn't of any concern to us. But when it appears defined that way in a respectable dictionary, however rightly or wrongly, and a discussion of it meets Misplaced Pages's standards of inclusion, where does it go? Under "bard", that's where. We don't have any choice about such a thing, unless I'm sorely mistaken, and I might be. Unfree (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, that's worth something, all righty! People pay good money for that. But you're missing the very best thing about the OED, the dates. IMHO, that is. Its famous editor was rather proud of that side of things, too. ;) Unfree (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't illustrate the limitation, "employees of kings", and even "employee" in modern-day usage would leave a bad taste in the mouths of historians, don't you think? It isn't as broad a concept as it once was: somebody used a certain way or to do something. Unfree (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it "degenerated" doesn't reflect on the validity of the early Lowland Scotch sense in any way, just how it came about. Unfree (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha! I missed the "1627" before, Thomas May's meaning, complete with date. So you see, "bard" means whatever that means also. As for "whether it belongs" in "our" article, or whether we "should" have something or other, isn't a decision to be made by anybody, it's a proven fact, and you've given the evidence right there. Do you think the OED is wrong, or its authority must be overridden for some reason? What the OED says, especially if you know how well it's respected, isn't open to the judgment of thousands or millions, it's established, period. How can it be called into question, unless you create an opposing dictionary which somehow blows it to smithereens, not by consensus opinion, but by valid proof? The burden is upon whomever challenges the OED to show evidence upon which to judge it wrong, surely. How can you disagree? Do you? How can the creation of articles whose names end in parenthesized things, or disambiguation pages, or the like, cope with the simple fact that you're using "bard" wrong. It means at least four things, not just "the topic of our bard article". That's why I said the article was inadequate. In it, you won't find thorough discussions of whatever the word means. That's what officially belongs there, whether we like it or not, regardless of the state of it at any point in time. It is only right and meet so to do, to coin a phrase. ;)

IOW, Unfree's claim, ill-starred, is marred; the use of "bard" as ="card" is barred. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it's Unfree again. I'd like to help out on the article, and what I said about what a "bard" in common parlance among American bards isn't nonsense, it's just silly, but intended to broaden the topic. What's in the article needn't be altered, but expanded by a sentence somewhere, or not, to make the point that we actually do say "bard", whether anybody likes it or not. Freedom of speech will have to be abolished first, not after our quaint, but slippery tongue, "English", becomes redefined by careless researchers who insist on not looking in a direction they'd rather not. But this is neither here nor there. What I propose is a monster article on "bard". An all-inclusive, thoroughly encyclopedic, unabridged, utterly authoritative article, not losing, but contributing lots and lots of stuff, maybe all that can be found, all that has ever been written, on "bard". I want to see reams and reams here, not a smidgeon of it. "Bard" should be a great formal introduction to the history and practice, celebrities and historians, everything anybody has in his or her library all over the world, not just celtic, though that's of greatest importance and should be of highest priority, most assuredly, in my humble opinion. But "bard" can't be limited to the select few who were "employees" of, or even those who were "utilized" (How I detest that word") by the great and mighty king, in his excellent personhood, himself. What about the almost king down the road into whose door a pseudo-bard came singing and dancing, offering a night of scholarship, poesy, song, etc., with a "Anybody want to hear the greatest poem ever written? It's all about..." Should we not include the greatest of the great bardlet, the future or past, but not tonight, king's bard, among our exclusive company because somebody's "going to be on television tonight", or "We're not interested in being entertained like the king, we're practicing tying our shoelaces. Sorry."? Oh, and by the way, what was my "claim"? Something about English Usage? Forget it; that was no claim. I disown it as a claim. It was only intended to give nigh-inexpressible insight, that's all. Besides, if it were interpreted as a claim, I'm sure Misplaced Pages software will correct it while we sleep. By the way, the jack of clubs actually is a card. And Shakespeare wasn't just "called" the bard. Unfree (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Me again. Somebody said "You may want wikt:bard." Heaven forbid! I'm no lexicographer! Anything of that "wikt" form isn't of the least interest to me. I'd rather die! I may lose my temper and go there some day, but I'll wait, thank you very much, for a decade or two and pop in to see what's happened. Nothing of any interest, I suspect, because I know that just because Misplaced Pages was a great idea doesn't mean that (just) anybody can write a decent dictionary. I'll stick to my own collection of expensive, standard, popular, erudite, unabridged dictionaries, which at present stands firmly fixed at zero. Meanwhile, I'll continue my typical habits, which seem to be working quite well. As for the bard article we're discussing, just because I have opinions doesn't mean anybody should respect them. I'm more the creative type. Let the opinionated folk get you riled up about things, not me. Unfree (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Vande mataram

Hell yes! The article now looks in a better shape. Congrats! --59.182.109.75 (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note I am not the editor who goes by the ip 59.93.242.192 (vandalism:section blanking) --59.182.109.75 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quettar

The article Quettar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails our notability guideline.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tyalië Tyelelliéva

The article Tyalië Tyelelliéva has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails our notability guideline. No evidence that it has received any attention from reliable independent sources (e.g. no Google news hits, 2 Google books hits: passing mentions, at least one from another fan-published source).

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

List of People who have been considered dieties

Following your recent edits of List of people who have been considered deities, do you think it would be worth adding Jesus is considered God incarnate by orthodox Christianity, including the Anglican, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches? For more info, the incarnation status is discussed in the article Incarnation (Christianity) Watercracker (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you are suggesting. Jesus is alreadly listed as being considered God incarnate in mainstream Christianity, which of course includes the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you need further evidence of Jesus as a notable diety: . Hans Adler 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, what are you talking about? Did I in any way suggest that Jesus was not "notable as a deity"? I'm confused. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course you didn't. I just got confused by the section title. I thought you were discussing dieties, not deities, and Jesus is much less known in his role as an inspiration for diets. Sorry for the bad pun. Hans Adler 18:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

doh, I should have clicked on your bbc link Hans, my mistake :) --dab (𒁳) 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Catholics certainly consider him a diety. -- Zsero (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

so, according to you, ichor has less calories than wine? --dab (𒁳) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he was a reducing diety. However you look at it, so long as he keeps the accidents of ordinary bread and wine he's got to be more appetising than a diet of worms. -- Zsero (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo, must have been hungry when posting this. I was making a distinction between Jesus being God (as you edited it to say in the article) and him being God incarnate. It seems according to the Incarnation (Christianity) page God incarnate is a better way to describe him, as in Christiology God was incarnated into human form - as Jesus. It's a minor point, but you seemed set on removing incarnate, calling it 'ridiculous' in your edit text. Do you think it's not more accurate, in light of the other wiki articles on Jesus as being referred to as God incarnate directly? Watercracker (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

you have missed the point entirely. The point of the revert was moving Jesus back from "self-deification" to "posthumous deification". The distinction between God and God incarnate is irrelevant here, because the entire page is about people "in the flesh". What I called 'ridiculous' was the claim that Jesus himself claimed to be "God in the flesh" during his lifetime. What he did claim, by oblique allusion, was being the Messiah, which no 1st century Jew could have mistaken for a claim of being God. I think the first to claim Jesus was God incarnate would have been John, about 60 years after Jesus' death. --dab (𒁳) 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Help, please

Hi Dab, I seem to have f*cked up somehow. First, the background is here. Next, I tried to undo this bogotic renaming. So, I reverted the latest additions, "moved" "Sanskrit metre" back to "Vedic meter" to restore the status quo ante -- all of which seemed to work -- and then killed the redirect (to "Vedic meter" as a result of my move) on the now "shadow" Sanskrit metre page to start a real page in earnest (where I put back in those additions so as not to lose content, and added some stuff to boot).

The problem is that this new Sanskrit metre page does not have its own Talk page. The "talk" tab takes one to Talk:Vedic metre instead. How can I fix this? Thanks! rudra (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Varoon_Arya (talk · contribs) took care of it.:-) rudra (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Violating site policy at page List of new religious movements

= in this edit you removed sourced info, and added a great deal of wholly unsourced info to the page. Please see WP:BURDEN. Please do not do this again. Cirt (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

nonsense, I restored an earlier revision, viz. the article structure which you destroyed. If you have complaints related to WP:CITE, use a tag, but don't destroy carefully designed article layouts like this. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

With this edit you have again violated WP:BURDEN a second time, after the above warning - by adding unsourced info to the page. I request that you please revert your edit. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

wow, you are "warning" me now? Presumably because you are "right" and I am "wrong"? Or because you decided you "OWN" the article after you have run over it roughshod? If you want this to become a bona fide discussion, you want to stop with the "warnings" and begin defending whatever it is you want to say by citing WP:BURDEN, a page competely unrelated to the question of list organization.

Your unilateral changes to the list article have broken lots of redirects, such as Christianity-derived new religious movements, and you have not bothered to clean up after yourself, you just left them lying around. Even now, you prefer to issue "warnings" decorated with wikijargon instead of trying to help fixing the problem, or considering that a veteran editor with 100k+ edits may be familiar with "site policy" and may not be intersted in violating said policy deliberately. Do me a favour and try to understand my complaint, and then we can work together like Wikipedians towards a solution. --dab (𒁳) 15:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Iraq

I'm afraid that Izzedine and his Iraq crew have gotten under my skin. Would you mind taking a look at the same "Iraq" = "Mesopotamia" issue at Iraq? I'm not sure whether I can be objective about it anymore. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Re: Gibuld

Hi, dab. I was curious to know if you had any additional information regarding this. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any more is known about this king than the two anecdotal mentions already referred to. It just remains to figure out the precise reference. This type of article is a merge candidate, into a comprehensive king of the Alamanni or similar. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hindu mythology

Please comment http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hindu_mythology#Hindu_mythology BalanceΩrestored 08:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

the article had been vandalized several times since October. Apparently, nobody is watching it. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

replied BalanceΩrestored 08:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

you are again wasting people's time because you cannot figure out for yourself what is shoved right in your face. Mythology discusses the primary meaning (meaning 1) of the dictionary meaning of "myth", not some derived meaning like "urban legend". I am sure that if you tried really hard, you could have concluded as much on your own. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

repliedBalanceΩrestored 10:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your domain

Hi Dab, Happy New Year! I'm traveling and strapped for both the time and the energy needed POV battles. If you have the appetite, here are a few pages for your viewing pleasure: British soldier in India and British in India. Please also see new additions to East India Company (discussion on Talk:East India Company). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dab, Thanks for all you help on the Company rule and EIC pages! Whenever you find it convenient, could you also take a look at British Raj, where the same editor user:Eraserhead1 is looking to add material. My memory of the page is that there was some concern that the history section was too long and that the first two subsections of it, both about prehistory, should be majorly pruned. Unfortunately, I am still traveling and won't have much time until after the third week of January for even routine editing, much less ideological battles. So, if you can add your input there as well, it would be great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Babylon

Hey,

Regarding this edit, how is consensus supposed to be formed then? Regards, warrior4321 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

if you are referring to the current consensus of WP:ERA "armistice", this has been solid for about four years now. But if you have an idea on how to improve the situation, you should bring it up at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --dab (𒁳) 20:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I am referring to "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors". I was trying to establish a consensus by conducting a discussion and viewing how many would support and how many would oppose it. The discussion was closed by 20 days after I had started the discussion. If anybody else had wanted to comment in the discussion, they would have done so by then. However, you came and just reverted everything. warrior4321 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

um, there is no reason whatsoever, let alone "subatantial" reason, for your change. the only reason you give is your personal preference. I strongly disapprove of people trying to sneak by changes in era format by claiming "consensus" ex silentio. --dab (𒁳) 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Military history of Asia

I have nominated Category:Military history of Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SatuSuro 02:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note it has been withdrawn - due to MILHIST reorganisation issues, Have a safe new year! SatuSuro 03:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI Activity

Were you aware of this ANI action? (Taivo (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

this chap is just begging for a ban, isn't he. --dab (𒁳) 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gayatri Mantra

Your input will be appreciated here, where an editor is contending that the mantra is not addressed to Savitr, because Brahmoism doesn't recognize devas. Abecedare (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And why is my input necessary to deal with patent nonsense based on no references? --dab (𒁳) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have this

and Happy new year Taprobanus (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

mtEve v. PB666  16:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also see ]. The shortening of the article was a long time coming, and not done in a rush, and it is a shame PB666 is unable to take part in discussions about such things in any practical way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User PB666 on Mitochondrial Eve and R1a

Hi. Your name is mentioned as a reference point here, and I think there is a good chance you would not like your name being used in this way. This is part of a bigger problem building up, and you should perhaps also cross reference to . I am keeping some notes, not perfectly complete, about previous incidents, here .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year, Dab We may not agree on everything but I sort of agree with your point on Rajan Zed. Honestly, I never heard of him before he was asked to say the first prayer in Congress!!

Regards, Raj2004 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

well, it's a minor point in the present context, because even if Zed himself was notable, the Avatar movie would still be a recentism for the purposes of the Avatar article. Cheers. --dab (𒁳) 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year. Let's hope 2010 is better than 2009 (overall, anyway). --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Irfan Habib

Please see this. That's the Bengali organ of the CPI(M), a social democrat party leaning more towards fascism than communism, .

Professor Irfan Habib has been a towering intellectual presence on the Indian academic scene for over four decades. Known as an unflinching Marxist scholar,...

the "Marxist scholar" is a bit dubious here. In Indian context, Marxist scholar can mean two things. Firstly, it is somebody who follows historical materialist approach and secondly it could also be said about somebody who owes his/her allegiance to the "Marxist Party", the common name for the CPI(M). In the case of Habib and others mentioned in the Ganashakti article (Panikar, Ms Patnaik etc), the second meanings seems more probable. They are a pathetic lot, worlds apart from a non-tendentious scholar like Romila Thapar. Aint I right Abeecedare?--117.204.93.123 (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize this. This topic needs to be discussed, with references, at Marxist historiography. Please be aware of WP:BLP and don't submit online sources as "references". We can't just go around and label people "Marxists" just because we found that somebody on the internets is calling them that. --dab (𒁳) 09:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

a word of thanks

I'm a very long term editor on Misplaced Pages, been editing since around 2003. Now, however, I tend to only use IP addresses to mostly make minor spelling/style edits and try to stay away from content as much as possible, due to getting tired of being dragged into ridiculous arguments on various language/history/nationalism/religion etc. related articles. Whenever I do check one of these, however, I see your name coming up on the talk pages again and again, invariably being the contributor arguing for the most sensible and well reasoned point of view, tirelessly defending against all manner of nonsense and chauvinism. At times I can see your frustration emerging, and I understand it must be hard to keep your cool, but I'd encourage you not to give up or let it get the better of you. You're providing a great service to the project, and as such, to an accurate understanding of the state of human knowledge for literally millions of people all over the world! Keep up the good work! --86.172.114.47 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear, Hear! (Taivo (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

thank you, I appreciate this a lot. It also reminds me to hand out more barnstars to those editors I think highly of. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

.....All this need now is a sharp pin. Meowy 19:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Idiot IP at Talk:Western world

There's an anon IP that keeps inserting an anti-Christian and anti-Jewish rant at Talk:Western world. Suggestions? (Taivo (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

I semi-protected the talk page and warned the IP. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (Taivo (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Ram Sharan Sharma

Hello, I just want to say that I did not understand this edit by you. I have added a reliable source which says RS Sharma belongs to the Marxist camp, then why you added a dubious tag. He belongs to the Marxist camp means he is Marxist. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed you did the same in the other articles also. Why? --Defender of torch (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed you have brought this issue in NPOV board. Replied there. --Defender of torch (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

what you are doing is known a cherry-picking, you are extracting soundbites to support your agenda. If you want to discuss this "Marxist historiography in India" topic, please do it properly and in context. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit in Bede about mss of his works

Hi DaB,

I just came across this old edit to the article on Bede, which as it presently stands makes very little sense. I just moved the discussion of the manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica to that article and left the section on mss of his varied works from the Palatina in Bede, but it looks like an orphan as it stands. Do you have any strong opinions about keeping it? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I don't remember what I was doing when I made this edit, and I agree the list looks a little forlorn, but on the other hand I would argue that this is important and difficult-to-find information. I was probably researching something and spent an hour to find this information, and decided to dump it on Misplaced Pages for future reference and to save others the trouble. I would have to look into it before I can form an opinion. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts when I first saw it was that there are so many Bede mss (several hundred of both the Hist. Eccl. and the De temporum ratione) that singling out a few mss in one library was a little unusual. On those grounds I favor deleting. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

yes of course, you are free to blank the list, it would be my responsibilty to do something encyclopedic with it. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox extended Ethnic group / Spanish people

Sir, I'm really upset about your recent edit in the Template:Infobox extended Ethnic group. This template was created in order to stop a number of edit wars in the Spanish people page, and though it's true that it has not been completely successful in achieving this goal, it is noteworthy that no editor, not even the anons, has shown any disagreement about the new template.

Needless to say, this template can be (and should be) used in many other pages. The "related by" category is open and can be adapted to different situations. I'm quite sure that other editors would find the template useful if they knew about its existence.

About my agenda, my point is really that all "X people" pages should be removed, though not before transferring any valuable content to other pages. The exact definition of any particular ethnic group is simply to subjective to serve as heading of any page. As this is too much of an objective for a single editor who is not even an administrator, I was just trying to make a little bit of sense of a nightmarish page, so that Misplaced Pages users don't get too misguided. Now, will you take care of this page? And what is your position? Are 25 million Argentinians ethnically Spanish because some tourist brochure says that they probably have Spanish ancestry? Or should they be ignored altogether? And, will you have the patience to revert almost daily those edits that don't agree with your position?

To say it briefly: You don't like my solution, so what is your solution? --Jotamar (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you don't attempt to resolve content disputes via templates. If you want to present "related ethnic groups" to the Spaniards, present your evidence on the article talkpage, and once you find consensus for your proposal, insert it into the article body (not an infobox). I do not understand what your "related by" parameter is even supposed to mean. In English, "related by" would express the means of relationship, i.e. if we are cousins, we are "related by" a grandparent. If you think you have a new parameter that can be usefully included in {{Infobox Ethnic group}}, you should make a suggestion at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group. The important thing is that you seek consensus. People will then also be able to help you express properly whatever it is you want to list under your "related by" parameter. Note that there is already a "related" parameter for related ethnic groups. What you have done is, you have done a copy-paste move of a complex template just to introduce a new parameter to the clone. This is unacceptable already on formal grounds.

In terms of content I have to inform you that the Spanish people are not an ethnic group, they are a nationality comprising a number of sub-nationalities. This is clearly stated in the Spanish people article already. If the Spanish people aren't an ethnic group to begin with, the Argentinians a fortiori cannot be "ethnically Spanish". As for reverting daily, if there is trolling or vandalism at that article, the solution will be semiprotection or protection, not fiddling about with template syntax. --dab (𒁳) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Romani infobox

Template:Romani infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sura Kingdom

Hi, Kindly give your input on This discussion Ikon 16:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to add to what SpacemanSpiff said. Please edit responsiby and respect WP:CITE]. --dab (𒁳) 18:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Comments by Nigedo ("I suggest you go and participate in another area of Misplaced Pages") Dbachmann ("you of course mean "my homies",") and David Rohl ("Sanity and reasonableness regains a foothold"; I take Dbachmann's point that this implies there had been insanity and unreasonableness) all seem to me inappropriate as article talk page comments, at the very least straying from what we're supposed to be discussing there. (I'm putting a similar message on all three user talk pages.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon. comments

Hello, Dbachmann. I deleted some comments off your page from an anonymous user who using POV and false statements to "help" his cause. Obviously you and I may not agree on some problems at the Spanish people article, but its at least civil. Thank you. C.Kent87 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I am used to this. Regarding the Spanish people article, I am open to any solution that may be based on citable references, but I insist that the solution may not lie in a infobox specially tuned for the Spanish. If an infobox creates trouble, it must be reduced, not expanded. Any infobox should only ever contain uncontroversial facts. It isn't possible to represent controversies in infobox form. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

MEXICAN COMPLEX IN SPANISH PEOPLE ARTICLE

So sad that ridiculous complex of the Mexicans for being Spanish, it has been vandalizing the article, you should only engage people of Spanish nationality and ethnic Spanish,. Mexicans not understand , the only nations where the population is majority are Ethnic Spanish are Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Costa Rica, and with significant numbers in Brazil (15,000,000) and Mexico (10,000,000) Mexico is a country of exotic culture, the only area of western European culture and america are USA, Canada, and America's Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and southern Brazil)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

sheesh, maybe you should find an article you feel less strongly about. --dab (𒁳) 20:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mount Beiwudang

If you are ever in central China you should check out Beiwudang Shan. If you are going let me know and I can give you detailed directions about finding the place. :D

I would certainly love to, but I do not plan on getting within a thousand miles of Beiwudangshan any time soon... --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ashoka Chakra

That article is a common target for trolls, do you think it should be semi-protected? Mitsube (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be merged. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. Mitsube (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahir

Hi, I saw your concern regarding disambiguation of ahir/abhir & also proposed clean up. I have left my comment on talk page regarding disambiguation. Please note, the articles were different initially with many names like ahir, ahirs, ahira, abhir, abhira etc, and had been merged later. Kindly share your views. Also, I have already cleaned up Origin section, and would like to have your evaluation of the same. It was full of conjectures earlier, which I already explained to Timberframe. Also, the article has a lot of unencyclopaedic sections, which needs to be removed. Looking forward to hear from you. Ikon 12:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Harry Palmer

I agree his self-description was vanity, but establishes his public claims as just that -- his own. Are you sure we should not add it back? Venus Copernicus (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging Fictional turtles into Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises

As a contributor to one of these articles, would you like to comment at the merge proposal? Vmenkov (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please

dab, please don't harass people in this way. We're supposed to have a spirit of community, try not to forget that. Izzedine 13:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed to get this from you of all people with a straight face. Well, I can't see your face, can I.

You wouldn't recognize a "spirit of community", let alone encyclopedicity, if your life depended on it.

My only consolation is that with this renewed outbreak of trolling on your part, your wiki-career is very likely drawing to its close. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned with your manner towards me. This is a public website which anyone is free to use without bullying or harrassment. In what way am I "Trolling" exactly? Izzedine 14:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You two clearly cannot collaborate. As your interactions are becoming a source of disruption, I ask that you both disengage. (That, Izzedine, includes editing Dbachmann's talk.) AGK 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I expect you are aware that Izzedine has a long history of trolling, including recent off-wiki canvassing due to which he only narrowly escaped a ban? If you are, I would ask you not to portray this as a symmetrical dispute. This is one patriotic pov-pusher vs. Misplaced Pages's immunity system, not "two who cannot collaborate". Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Central Guoshu Institute

This comes from just about the most reliable online English source of CMA information: "The Central Guoshu Institute had to move out of Nanjing at the very start of the war. It changed locations almost every year following, until the war was over. In 1946, the Institute returned to Nanjing, however the move back was largely symbolic. The war left the Institute with no office, no activities and no money. Two years later, the Institute was no more." Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record any information coming from Gene Ching about CMA history is likely to be about the best quality available in the English language. Gene is strongly connected to organizations in both USA and China, has years of research, and is impecably honest. I love working with him and do so whenever I get the chance. (I have written for his magazine on occasion). Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

excellent, many thanks. --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your input on the TM related pages. Added editor input can only make the articles stronger. As per the ref list. Many times rewrites or sources have been added on the talk pages for editor scrutiny, so although it is not the norm on many article pages it is the accepted standard where such ongoing checking of sources and text is necessary. Just for your information. (olive (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

After five minutes of involvement, I scan that you apparently have a WP:COI. This is something that does not "make the articles stronger" but rather weaker. If you are in any way involved with or attached to TM I would ask you to take a back seat in this. --dab (𒁳) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)