User talk:Dbachmann/archive5

Sud-Pol

Ok, Sorry for the misunderstanding :) Sud-Pol 13:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

168.209.97.34

There is already an arbitration against 168.209.97.34 which is being considered now that 168.209.97.34 should be banned if he posts personal insult. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34/Proposed decision .. If you go there, you will notice that 168.209.97.34 has vandalized that page a second time. Just that vandalism is enough proof that he violated wiki policy OneGuy 10:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the link. I didn't ask that he be permanently be banned. Currently most arbitrators have voted that he should be banned for one week if he posts personal insult 10:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note. OneGuy has a personal grudge against me and anyone else who is critical of Islam. He is using you and the arbitration as a tool to silence those who are critical of Islam. OneGuy himself has a long history of revert wars (he violated the 3RR policy yesterday, see [[1]]. He knows what he is doing is wrong but feels that the rules don't apply to him.

168.209.97.34 10:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

okay, I get the picture. let's keep this off my freshly-archived talkpage now :o) dab (ᛏ) 10:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguation going on

Why does Wikipedia exist? I've been working under the misconception that at least some of the editors had the aim of a great encyclopaedia. I would have thought that was an uncontroversial view.

Anyway, dude, perhaps you didn't mean to be quite so aggressive towards me. In the space of two comments you said that people use the 3RR to silence minorities and then you slammed me for saying the same and said it wasn't used to silence minorities.

I think it's used for exactly that reason. POV pushers like Viriditas know that they can go 2 reverts and get a friend to do 3 and 4, and they can effectively keep the page just how they like it. Viriditas came to the admin page, whined about someone reverting four times and then claimed "hey, it's no big deal". If it's no big deal, why whine to the hall monitors?

Anyway, I don't care enough to get into it with you. There's more than enough conflict in Wikipedia without you and I adding more to it.Dr Zen 10:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I can't see where I was asking for anything "legalistic". I'm for sorting it out like adults. I find it entirely irritating to see people throwing policies at each other as though that actually was the way to discuss differences.

You know, you'd think that where opinions are opposed, both parties could actually figure out that they can't both have their own way, and if there is to be anything left standing, they must compromise.

Well, perhaps they do. Some doubtless see it as a game, a contest that can be won. shrugDr Zen 11:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't withdraw the RfAr

You think afu has lost interst and will now go away, and/or cause no more disruption? I doubt it very strongly. I think he's only being quiet because he has realized that the RfC was a rout and because he figures his socks are about to be outed. And at this point, also, because he knows that he has no evidence of the kind ArbCom wants, no case to make. Why, the instructions for RfAr explicitly state that the only form of case-making he knows, the "stream-of-consciousness rant", will be looked on with disfavor! I think he's lying low because he knows he'll lose. Very likely he'll input nothing on the evidence page, say nothing else, maybe leave en.wiki: after all, he's only here for the single purposing of inputting his POV on those particular pages (as witness his username). But all this desirable quietness is only happening because of the power of the system, not because he's tired or has come to see the error of his ways. I draw this conclusion from what happened, and is still happening, on hu.wiki. A strong demonstration of how afu'll only give in to force, power, sanctions! In other words: I think he'll pop right back up if you withdraw the RfAr. Shouting that he has won, the defamers didn't dare! Please don't withdraw it now. I also think we should point to hu.wiki, if the ArbCom seem to be leaning to some sort of "Well, he's quiet now, isn't he?" copout. --Bishonen | Talk 11:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. but I repeat that this is not a personal matter for me. I don't want to see him punished, I just want to stop his disruption. I don't think he realizes how confused he is, and therefore he could not stop his misbehaviour until after the rfar (not realizing he is misbehaving). I think he is also quiet because nobody reverted his "Critique" article for a week, he has basically won his edit war on that one, as of now. dab (ᛏ) 11:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

correction, Wiglaf has reverted him again. dab (ᛏ) 11:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some authority needs to tell him that what he was doing was wrong. I don't think he'll be punished and I don't think the RFAr is about punishment, but making him understand that what he did was harmful to the community and he should stop doing it. He gave no sign of understanding this, and no sign of changing his ways after the incidents. Nyenyec 12:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salazar

hello I didn't understand what you meant. Salazar 12:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) no first name, only name, do people have more than one normally? Salazar 12:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Socks still in place

Yes, sure, I didn't mean the bit about the socks, I've left that and even expanded it a little. That could be worth having, and I did notice you referred to it. It was my other graph, about afu's 3RR violation, that I wanted to remove, and now I have. Though the 3RR graph's still on your subpage, in case the diffs are wanted or whatever. I haven't updated the subpage to match the live evidence page. No, nobody's out for punishment; this is self-defence.--Bishonen | Talk 16:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ashvamedha

The Rig Veda contains references to the horse as representing the Sun and Agni, though no descriptions of the the ritual itself. Satapatha Brahmana 13.5.2.1-10 describe in explicit detail the Ashvamedha rituals, including the copulation. Some references say that the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad also mentions this but I can't seem to find this reference. In the Ramayana Rama's father, Dasharatha does conduct the Asvamedha. I'm not sure if the copulating bit is described in it. I'll try to look it up but I know there are descriptions of the Ashvamedha in both the Ramayan and the Mahabharatha where Yudhistra conducts the Ashvamedha. I don't know if the Ashvamedha was as exceptional as you make it seem. And it definitely survived into post vedic times. Samudragupta performed it and he reigned uptil 380 AD. So did some king called Raja Sagar (according to a google search, though I'm not sure who he was).

This may not be relevant but the bestiality and necrophilia involved in the Ashva and purushamedhas disgusted B.R.Ambedkar, the writer of the Indian constitution immensely, and he talks about it at length in one of his books, which the Shiv Sena, a Hindu nationalist party tried to get banned.

Finally, I think the horse itself is supposed to have some defining characteristics, can you look that up? Thanx, --Notquiteauden 20:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I found some evidence that the Ashvamedha did survive into post-Vedic times. http://www.todyauction.com/0623.htm The link above has a picture of a coin issued in Samudragupta's reign (330-370 or 380 AD). It is called the Ashvamedha coin and shows that the Ashvamedha did survive beyond Vedic times. The description of the coin reads as follows "Gold Dinar 7.5 g, Ashvamedha type. An un-tethered horse, on obv, standing to left, with a double collar around his neck. To his left is yupa, the sacrificial post which is bent in two places and equipped with the girdle, wooden ring, and cloth pennons, as prescribed in the Vedic ritual texts. Brahmi sa for Samudra between the legs of the horse. Queen standing on rev on a lotus wearing a sari and holding a chouri over her shoulder with her right hand, a towel in her left hand. An ornate scepter to her left (Altekar III:6 ff). Slight double striking on the Brahmi legend on rev, otherwise very attractive, Extremely Rare" If I may digress, Samudragupta's title after completing the Ashvamedha become MaharajaADHIRAJA Samudragupta, and Adhiraj happens to be my name. I'm not sure if this is always the case but I think that a king had to have completed the Ashvamedha to recieve the Adhiraja title. Several kings after Samudragupta have called themselves Maharajadhiraja, including (according to a google search anyway) the Maharaja of Burdwan into modern times. Since the title is linked to the Ashvamedha I think some modified, toned down version of it continued to be performed into the very recent past. I don't know if they actually sacrificed horses or used a substitute (Kali temples for instance substitute wheat flour stuffed scarecrows for human sacrifice now) though some temples still sacrifice cows, bulls, and other large animals. --Notquiteauden 20:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Zain engineer went and did it.

Re: disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read entire discussion before replying

You accuse me on my talk page of wanting to start up trouble and asking me to leave yet you obviously failed to read what I said in context. Just because OneGuy is your friend you should not just jump on his side regardless. 168.209.97.34 08:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you do not have time to read the context of what I said then don't bother putting your warnings on my talk page. As of not creating an account - It is not required, is it? To use your line of thought, if you don't like that I edit without creating an account then feel free to ignore me or simply please leave. 168.209.97.34 08:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

He (?) does seem to consider himself a law unto himself (see e.g. previous discussion, about his reverting of Netoholic's stuff, among many other such incidents). I forsee a big blow-up down the line, somewhere. Noel (talk) 16:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

I was not personally involved in that article

Not until the anon started making personal attacks. Given that we no longer allow for personal attacks I feel that I'm more than justified in blocking the anon/pename. If you want to know how bad it got, ask Mustaafa, OneGuy, Alberuni, and any other contributor to the Jihad page. It was basically one anon making personal attacks and stopping any progress on that article. If you'd seen what happened with that page, then you'd understand why that anon got blocked for a week. Like I've said to a few people: do you think I like having to block users? I don't. Blocking that user was my very last resort. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, if you want to see more evidence of personal attacks and inflammatory language, check out Template talk:Timeline of Islamist militancy. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

afu RfAr diff

Excellent work on RfAr, dab, you're being restrained and telling all over the place, great! Hey, though, your multiuser diff in Comment summarizing Evidence writeup looks too long, isn't this, also multi-user but shorter, the bit you want, or is there some subtlety I'm not grasping?--Bishonen | Talk 01:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

country infoboxes

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

voting: Wikipedia:Country_infobox_vote

Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:19, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite RFC

I saw that you wrote an outside view on Rhobite's RFC and thought this might be of interest to you. I noticed earlier that User:Ollieplatt moved the Rhobite RFC into approved status when it only had his signature certifying. I moved it back to uncertified and quickly received a message from Ollieplatt questioning why and requesting that it be moved back to approved. I went back and forth with him explaining that two users have to certify. See my talk page and his talk page. The RFC has now been signed by User:Eric B. and Rakim, whom I don't believe had any connection to the matter. Ollieplatt has moved the RFC back into approved status. I really don't want to get involved any further but I wanted to let you know what had occurred thus far. Carrp 02:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RFA

[[2]] Regards: antifinnugor 21:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

afu, once again

I would appreciate any help with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Antifinnugor/Evidence. I'm a bit unhappy with this rfar now that afu seems to have lost interest. But since it's underway, I suppose we'll have to see it through. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

never mind, I think I got most of it covered, now. You are still welcome to add additional material. dab (ᛏ) 13:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply; didn't have time to look into it during the work week. Anyway, I've added some evidence of my attempts to resolve the dispute. If you have any suggestions just let me know. dbenbenn | talk 01:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And some more afu

Hi, dab. I think the ArbCom has reason to sympathise with Antifinnugor for having a difficult position in the complicated RfC and RfAr processes, with limited English skills and alone against a group of experienced editors. Heck, I sympathise with him a lot for that myself, or at least I did up to just now, when he deleted without comment the elaborate advice I'd posted on his page about how to defend himself more effectively in the RfAr. (He deleted a similar message from Nyenyec, too.) That stuff took me hours to write, and I took a lot of trouble trying to express it accessibly and helpfully, so right now my feeling is I've wasted enough time on him. I don't have infinite patience like Nyenyec. Anyway, I think we might put something about this aspect into the RfAr, but I'm not sure how. Do you think it would work for me to add a paragraph under "Statement of complaint"? Plus a description with diffs in the evidence page, where Nyenyc would probably have more info to add than me. I think you've only used up a little more than 300 words out of the 500 limit in the "Statement of complaint", although it is of course desirable to keep it as concise as possible, rather than pushing at the limit. I've started to draft it on this page. I'll be away for a few hours now, but please let me know what you think.--Bishonen | Talk 11:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Squiggly characters"

Please note that the Society for Extermination of Funny Forign Squiggles (SEFFS) are out in force again on Wikipedia:Requested_moves, trying to force an ASCII-name on poor Tomáš Masaryk. / Uppland 16:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt

Since you seem to be online, would you mind keeping an eye on Ollieplatt? I've got to take off, having just done battle with him over the inclusion of nonsense citations at Students for a Democratic Society (he's reverted three times already) and removal of information from Ollie North. He's now moved on to nonsense with the Dean Scream article he created (including the uploading of this. RadicalSubversiv E 10:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Swastika

Hey, I have seen your good work on swastika. Thanks a lot for contributing -- it's a contentious topic and subject to random editing. The article has substantially improved over the last several months and you certainly get a lot of credit for that. Keep up the good work, Wile E. Heresiarch 16:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hindu scriptures

Thanks for the input, and sorry if I got some things wrong- my knowledge of the subject matter is decidedly limited. In particular, I categorized the Mahabharata as Shruti based on the information in Shruti: "In addition, the Mahabharata (an Itihasa, or History, also part of the "friendly scripture" class) is considered by some to be Shruti and is sometimes called the fifth Veda. Sometimes the Bhagavad Gita, a chapter within the Mahabharata, is separately considered as worthy of the Shruti status." If you think that this is wrong, please correct it. If you can think of a better title than "Hindu scriptures", please change it as well.

I chose to make the template vertical so that indentation could be used to indicate which elements are subsets of other elements (e.g. that the Bhagavad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata); I can't think of any way to do this with a horizontal template. Furthermore, the template should be an easy-to-use navigational guide, and a navigational template is useless if it's at the bottom of a page where only those who read the entire article will see it (granted, this isn't much of a problem with the shorter articles, but it is with the longer ones).

I left out the articles that you mention on the template's talk page because none of them have any content right now, but will be glad to add them to the template should some content appear; the same goes for individual articles on all of the Puranas, Upanishads, et cetera. If a significant number of those are added, then the template will merit splitting; until then, I think it's fine as it is (many other navigational templates are just as large, particularly in the "History of [country]" series). The font size could probably use reducing, though. - Didactohedron 22:07, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking GzPl

Re: your recent comment on WP:AN. Indeed, the reason I didn't block him (at all) was that when I went and actually looked at his recent edit history, I saw nothing to warrant any kind of block (not even a 12-hour one, let along one month), which is why I didn't. I had placed too much reliance on the initial posting to WP:AN (sigh). Noel (talk) 16:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you actually read this comment? If so, why are you implicitly accusing me ("if you decide to take action, you should be expected to familiarize yourself with the case first") of having actually done something without having looked at the facts? I had no interest in simply applying a 24-hour block (that would be a waste of time with GzPl), and if there was no community consensus for a longer block (if warranted), I had no interest in wasting my time looking at the record. Noel (talk) 14:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I did not say I was "'not .. interested in fairness'", I said "Fairness is not my priority; building an ancyclopaedia is". I am interested in being fair, but not to the point where it gets in the way of my primary goal (the encyclopaedia).

One way in which this principle works (there are other implications too) is that I am not willing to use too high an amount of resources (e.g. my time) to do a perfect job of being fair. (There's no such thing as 'perfect' fairness anyway; you can only get closer and closer, through the expenditure of more and more resources.) A hypothetical example may help make this clearer; if my choices are:

1. Spend 5 minutes editing an article, and 25 viewing every last "diff" in an edit war before taking action
2. Spend 25 minutes editing an article, and 5 viewing some "diff"s in an edit war before taking action

I would generally prefer be closer to 2 than 1 (but of course the exact ratio would depend on the circumstances, the penalty, etc - for higher penalties I'd want to be more careful).

I agree with you about "building a (balanced, non-cabalistic) 'pedia", but I think a bigger problem in reaching that goal is the very one GzPl referred to - how do we deal with contentious articles, in a way which is economical of the time of our good/senior editors?

The reaon I "seem to be very annoyed at gzpl" is his previous comments (at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive2#Gzornenplatz blocked), in which he just doesn't seem to get that "edit wars" really upset most of the rest of us.

I think the reason "why people seem to blame him more than his opponents" is that the amount of conflicts he gets into seems to indicate that he seems to make a habit out of getting into these situations. I.e. he seems to think it's his role on Wikipedia to stop POV editors (by getting into edit wars with them). With most edit wars (e.g. the perennial Arab-Israeli ones), the people involved seem to have personal axes to grind. However, if you look at the subects GzPl's edit wars, they are (quite literally) all over the map, so it's hard to imagine that he has any personal interest in the outcome of many of them.

As for "no offense to you, and I should probably just stay away from all this", I'm not permanently offended or anything; I was just (as most people are, when they are accused of something they feel they didn't do :-) somewhat bothered. Please don't feel that you have to stop commenting. Noel (talk) 16:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

de.wiki

Hi, dab, you're a German speaker, right? I was just wondering, some day when you're absolutely stumped for something to do, would you have the kindness to translate the few lines on my de.wiki Benutzerseite and Diskussionsseite into German? I got to chatting with a couple of people there who'd translated some stuff of mine, so I thought I'd register and make a userpage for ease of signing and so on. That was probably a faux pas, mind you, because as soon as I did, the chatting stopped cold! I've got an uneasy feeling nobody there'll ever speak to me again. So it's not exactly important about what's on those pages, but it just seems rude to have the text in English. I can read some German, on a good day, but can't put two words together, Gubbubu's English would look native-level by comparison. How's things? How's the famous wikibreak going?--Bishonen | Talk 07:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What great deutschification, you make me sound wonderfully respectable! I suppose the trouble is nobody's going to believe I can't write in German, when they see the page like that. They'll think I'm one of the world's great polytglots, that just can't be bothered to turn it on for everyday use. Love that peinlicherweise! So, typing is tippen? That's convenient, I must say. (In my native tongue, it's maskinskrivning. ;-)) Thanks very much, dab. Hope I didn't turn the break into a full-dress relapse. --Bishonen | Talk 20:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aha, the old Tastatur, that's a very nice word. I read that somewhere and it stuck for being so cool. In fact I was living in the belief that "to type" might be "tasten". Checking.. these web resources have transformed my life.. "Tasten" seems to refer to the keys or buttons. Yes, indeed, get a load of this guy: Tastenwahlfernsprecher! But if you wanted to make it some kind of challenge, betcha the Scandinavian languages could match you guys consonant for consonant and emerge victorious.

I see you made it Bischonen, almost like you guessed I was thinking of going all the way and using Bischönen as my German identity. :-) Btw, there's a couple of sentences on the Diskussions-Seite also, that are beyond the combined efforts of me and Babelfish: ... "please be advised that I will reply in English. I apologize for this, it's very rude, but I just don't have the skill to make myself understood in German, sorry. I will generally reply on this page. If you'd like me to reply on your page, please say so". Could you possibly...? Don't bother to go there, of course, just tell me, if you would. Playing around with it a little--taking out "be advised", and "sorry" on its own, no need to beg for trouble--I got this:

uh.. nah... well, anyway... daß ich auf englisch antworte. Ich entschuldige mich für dieses, ist es sehr ungezogen, aber ich habe nicht die Fähigkeit, zum ...no, forget the next bit, it's ridiculous. Ich antworte im Allgemeinen auf dieser Seite. Wenn Sie möchten, daß ich auf Ihrer Seite antworte, sagen Sie bitte so.

Babelfish insisting on the polite Sie is the least of my problems, probably, although that did send me on a verb form chase: I seem to have less of an ear, if possible, for the ihr verb endings than the rest. --Bishonen | Talk 11:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

de:Uwe Topper

To lazy to write in English: Besten Dank für den überzeugenden Artikel zur gefälschten de:Himmelsscheibe von Nebra ;-). Ich habe mir mal erlaubt, den Artikel über den Fachmann etwas auszubauen und würde mich über Korrekturen freuen. 141.35.17.32 13:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocking IP

Hallo Dieter. Heute bekam ich eine Meldung, dass meine IP (10.0.0.29 - nicht meine übrigens) von Dir geblockt wurde. Was hat es denn damit auf sich? Ein lieber Gruß aus dem nahen Freiburg (D). --EricS 16:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Admin's noticeboard and [[Talk::Islamophobia]]

I have never seen such unprofessional conduct from someone in "management" on wikipedia. I point out a personal attack made to me by OneGuy and you not only give me a personal attack back (calling me "stupid") you then go and tell me to go take a walk in a park. Please try to remember that there are real people behind these IP's and wiki usernames. 168.209.97.34 14:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia

By the way, this article is under attack by someone who uses open proxies to keep reverting to very old POV version, like he did just now OneGuy 16:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann, doesn't wikipedia do scans for open proxies? Also, OneGuy, how do you know they are open proxies and know the person(s) are a "he"? Maybe you know a little more than you are letting on... 168.209.97.34 08:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no, it doesn't. you google for the IP. 'he' is often used as cover pronoun in cases of unknown gender. dab (ᛏ)

Re: Request

Hello Dbachmann. Thanks for your message. I don't have a prejudice against anonomous users; I was one myself for the first couple of contributions. I don't know whether that user is disruptive, but it is looking increasingly likely that in order to actually get Fvw to talk to me I will have to file an RfC. I would far rather deal with this amicably, but Fvw has: a) ignored my request for discussion, b) ignored my request for discussion via a mediator, and c) ignored my email request for discussion. If I have to file an RfC, I obviously want some support - who wouldn't? Anyway, thanks for your comment. Would you mind trying to discuss this with Fvw on my behalf? - Jakew 17:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hi fvw -- I agree that this is rather a big fuss over a 12h block, and now that it appears your 'enemies' are only too happy to gloat over it, I imagine you'll feel even less inclined to talk about it. But anyway, to me it looks as if you were just a little bit too trigger-happy here. I can well understand this, seeing the amount of justified, necessary vandal-blocking that you do. But I also think that, seeing that Jakew is taking the block, and especially your refusal to talk to him, badly, that a brief apology would not hurt you. Jakew asked me to bring this up. I have no particular feelings about this, it just seems that it would be best to apologize now, even partially, or with reservations, than allow this to develop into a drawn-out 'case'. best regards, dab (ᛏ) 17:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for your concern. May I ask why you think the block is inappropriate? Have a look at the history for User:DanP. Robert made a similar edit which was unsurprisingly immediately reverted. From this (and the usual differentiation of function between talk and user pages) its seems to me that the edits Jakew made where clearly (to him as well) against the wishes of its owner. Anyway, I appreciate apologising as a way of defusing these matters, but considering that I stand by my decision I think apologising would be disingenuous, not to mention misleading. --fvw* 18:01, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Just wanted to express my appreciation for you having taken the time to discuss this with Fvw. Thanks! - Jakew 05:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio poll

Hi. There is a poll going on at Talk:Autofellatio. We'd appreciate your vote. —Cantus…☎ 04:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

There is a vote for delete now on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion .. see also Jimbo Whales comments on Talk:Autofellatio OneGuy 11:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

de:Benutzer:Phoenix2

Magst Du auf de mal einen Blick seine Benutzerbeiträge werfen? --Pjacobi 01:02, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Unusual FAC nomination

And might you be interested in werfing a blick at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder, a user subpage of mine somewhat unusually nominated on FAC (through no fault of mine), and somewhat unexpectedly not yet removed by Raul? Vote if you feel like it, support and opposition equally welcome! But if you do find it comprehensive and well-referenced, well... Bishonen | Talk 19:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

afu wikistress

Hey, dab, don't let it get to you, have a cookie, man. Have a whole tableful. Bishonen | Talk 18:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I assure you I am sincere in my desire for the wikipedia to be as fair as possible, and in my opposition to permanant bans based solely on singular personal attacks / dubious cases of disruption. The user in question was not warned, and I find the precedent ominous. I understand that at this point he is very unlikely to edit from that account again, but I think unblocking it would be a positive gesture of propriety. Thank you again for your polite and thoughtful words, and kind attentions. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, the point is that it was a new account. Policy specifically allows stricter blocks on newly created accounts that are nothing but trouble. Had it been a seasoned and well-known editor, I agree there should have been a warning, already to give opportunity for an apology. dab (ᛏ) 11:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm beginning to become aware that the policy for new accounts is rather different than that for old. I'm not sure I like that, but I agree its the case. "Nothing but trouble" is subjective, IMO the user was angered by the imminant deletion of a page he had created, and expressed himself (I'm pretty sure he ment what he said) in an unfortunate manner. Personally I wouldn't say he was being "disruptive" so much as unpleasent, but then I'm not the blocking admin. Either way, is an indefinite block in order? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

new accounts are a penny apiece. he can always create another and behave. dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Passing of the Antique

In that case, have the futuristic/elegiac tph "Passing of the Antique", the work of User:PRiis! The glory days of the tph article are numbered, I think. Ah, dab, bliss was it in that time to be alive, but all things must end. Bishonen | Talk 16:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RE: Condescension

I responded to your comment here. El_C 17:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFC on myself

Would you be able to respond to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu? Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shield, sanity, browser

Yes, it did help sane editors in HuWiki, thank you for going through with it.

I'm sorry I couldn't find anything on the shield and neither could people I asked.

May I ask you what browser you're using?

I'm experimenting with a JavaScript toolbox for Wikipedia and I may need some beta testers soon.

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 16:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism RfC

AFAIK, there's no RFC filed in connection with the Jewish ethnocentrism page. I said I would file one to clear my name if Mikkalai didn't stop alleging that I had broken policy by blanking/protecting the page after it was VfD'd, but now that he seems to have backed off that I have no wish to do so. Noel (talk) 22:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of an rfc on the article itself, not on user conduct. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re: cite sources?

Hi, how are you? Between you and me ;), Category:Missing citations is still there, so you can add articles there. You could also post them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Template:Unreferenced is also not yet deleted, but it might be, so you may want to avoid that. Many, no most...actually damn near all wikipedia articles are poorly referenced, so having a template for it kinda added clutter. If I were you, I'd make sure that things actually get done at Category:Missing citations, and that it doesn't grow to big, lest it become a CFD in the future. Sorry for deleting the template, but it was inevitable with only one keep vote and 8 delete votes. See you around! -Frazzydee|✍ 20:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that category is somewhat unused. Try Category:Articles which lack sources. The existing templates for marking unsourced articles are documented at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. -- Netoholic @ 17:04, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you're right, dab. For some odd reason I was under the impression that consensus was to delete Template:Unreferenced, I guess because consensus was overwhelmingly to delete Template:Cite sources. All the best! -Frazzydee|✍ 20:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tamil language FAC

Can you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tamil language and register your vote? Thanks. -- Sundar 07:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nazi stand

S'ok :-) Ta bu shi da yu 11:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pic of Zartosht

About the Zoroaster image, it is easy to find 10 different websites claiming copyrights for the same image. The reason I gave little info on the image is that nobody really knows, including those who claim copyrights for this image, who the artist really is. It is most probably scanned out of an old book or a wall painting from Iran.--Zereshk 14:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

422BCE

I noted the recency of the date on the clay tablet myself. That's what the tag said at the Field Museum. It looks like no one challenged the date when they were creating the catalog item and the date propagated thru the system to the exhibition floor. The next time I get to Chicago, I will leave a note, and also find out the tag number so that they can check the date for themselves. For example, there were several Mesopotamian items, all about that date, including a clay hand sickle and a model sheep. I have pictures but no tag numbers. Ancheta Wis 13:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed the label to say Mesopotamian.

Gauss

Hello dab, I just learned you speak German. I remember a quotation from Karl Friedrich Gauss, how he came up with some of his mathematical discoveries:

"Durch planmässige [experimentation]" (my English word here)

with the meaning "through systematic, palpable experimentation". Have you heard this quotation? Regards, Ancheta Wis 15:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism categories

you raise a good point. Maybe Hindu traditions should be renamed Hindu rituals. I think texts should be separate though. Rituals describe something being performed. text is material or source.

concepts of hinduism should be merged with hindu philosphical concepts, concepts of hinduism should be merged with hindu philosphical concepts but i don't know how to do it.

I've never created categories before? If u can merge or create the category, I'll help organize it.

combining, probably combine hindu traditions and hindu worship into hindu rituals. I was think concepts in Hinduism and hindu philosphical concepts should be combined. User:Dangerous-Boy

please sign with ~~~~ (and let's keep this in a single section) dab (ᛏ) 07:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 20:51 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

The terms that we are increasingly tired of

Thanks for your comments. You misunderstand one thing, though. I have no problem with the use of BC/AD. Why should I? However, I do see the point of using BCE/CE in some articles and note that Wikipedia guidelines support this. What I do object to is editors who go around switching the terms, claiming for "consistency's" sake it must all be BC/AD. I've taken a stand against this. Sunray 08:41, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Well, the Manual of Style only says use one or the other throughout a particular article. It is true that editors will happen along and add one or the other term as is their wont. So it can be messy. I did insert BCE in a couple of cases where the original article had used both. But it wasn't me who did the initial revert on any of those articles. The charge of the MOS is consistency within articles, not Wikipedia-wide consistency. Sunray 09:11, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

sacrifice

Hello db: Here is what I can tell you about the sacrifice image. It was something that I found while wandering through the hills in northern New Mexico . i just happened to be out with a visitng friend who has had some experience with people who ingage/indulge in some of the darker arts. The nature of the stones surrounding the dog, plus the fact that it appeared as if it had had it's heart [or perhaps other vital organs] removed led both she and me to conclude that it was part of a sacrifice. As always on such walks I had my camera. I was rather repulsed by the sight, so did not take a lot of detailed shots. There is a community of folks around here who practice Santeria, and whom are RUMORED to engage in such practices - though this is just a RUMOR. I would not be comforrtable have much added beyond 'Northern New Mexico" to the photo caption. What do you think/feel about it ? Carptrash 17:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paintings found nearby.

I don't know if your interest in the sacrifice image was just a concern about the intergrity of what is posted on wikipedia or due to some other interest, but here is a painting that I found on the nearest rocks to the dog, about a furlong away. Are they connected, or not? Who knows, not me, but I thought you might want to see these in a contect other than in the article its self. Carptrash 20:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian0918

You shouldn't think that your vote doesn't matter; I'm taking all comments seriously, both because I don't want to make enemies (I'm not a divider, but a unificator :)), and because I know that adminship is a privilege that can be taken away. I agree with your statements-- an admin's job is janitorial. With respect to belligerence: If you are referring to my use of "BAN THIS USER!!!", it was simply an attempt to get the attention of admins watching the Recent Changes pages (before I discovered W:VIP), and I restricted usage to anonymous individuals who were currently vandalizing numerous pages. As for the usage of "police on their way" in my edit summary, I was just trying to be funny, although I see how it can be taken the wrong way, and will not use it in the future. -- BRIAN0918  17:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Völkerwanderung

You are right, of course. I'm sorry for my intervention! --Johan Magnus 09:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Runes

I think we are entering an edit war, and we really need to deal with the question of correct categorization. Please discuss the issues on the Talk:Runic alphabet page. Evertype 17:11, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland - administrator

Thank you for supporting my appointment as an administrator. I appreciate the pat on the back this represents. It felt nice to read the comments during the voting. Please let me know if you see something I should be doing as admin, as I intend to be fairly passive unless it is clear I should do otherwise. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Battle of Laupen.jpg

If you check the extlink given, they claim the image to be taken from the "Luzerner", and hence it would be Diebold Schilling the Younger. What makes you believe it wasn't the "Luzerner"?

Incidentally, do you have a copy of the "Luzerner" where you scanned Image:Reislaeufer Luzerner Schilling.jpg from, or where does that image come from? Lupo 08:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allright then, could you please state the web source on the image description page? On a side note: can you explain why that woman is marching with the mercenaries? And where are they headed to? I presume they're marching south, but that's just a hunch. Do you have any background information on this image? Lupo 09:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you're right. Found this one [3], and the thumbnails from the Berner and Spiezer are stylistically much closer to Image:Battle of Laupen.jpg than the Luzerner. Lupo 09:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dab!

Hi Dab, I am making a short visit. You have done great work with the maps of the spread of I-E languages. In general, I agree completely with your presentation. There is only one little thing, you might consider. In the later map, ca 2500BP, you have the Ukraine marked with brown. Perhaps it could be marked with red like Iran and India, since the Scythians are usually considered to have been an Iranian tribe.--Wiglaf 11:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! You're right, I should not stay for too long. Here are a few suggestions, you might consider:

1) I'd only make some spots with Germanic in Iberia, indicating that the majority was Romance.

2) I'd make the Tokharian double the size it has now, indicating that their herds probably grazed the slopes and the surroundings of the Tien Shan.

3) I'd remove the Germanic spot in Finland, and/or instead make the colour sweep the coastlines.

4) I'd make the Indo-European in Scandinavia ca 3500BP correspond to the distribution of the Nordic Iron Age, i.e. covering most of the coastlines of Scandinavia. This to fit with the corresponding archaeological culture of Scandinavia.

Great work on Wikipedia, Dab! As an advice from a friend who is trying to finish his own dissertation, try to take a very long break from Wikipedia, for your own sake!--Wiglaf 12:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)