User talk:Dbachmann/Archive 43

I've recently commented on an old post of yours at Talk:Astronomy_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#WP:NAME. You might want to comment. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Wikimedia is now funding Wikipedia content? That's despicable. Clearly, Wikipedia as a project is now in active danger because Wikimedia has become over-funded and over-motivated. --

dab (𒁳)

08:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to make Assyrian people articles less crazy primordialist, care to help? This template basically sums up everything wrong with the wikiproject. My view on the subject is that Assyrians are descended from multiple peoples including but certainly not exclusive to ancient assyrians but its absurd to say they are the ancient assyrians- the assyrian empire comprised many peoples and it was never ethnically exclusive in the first place, not to mention it was invaded by other peoples and the assyrian church was a prosyletizing religion. As Encylopedia Brittanica affirms,"In the New Babylonian, or Chaldean, empire, Chaldeans, Aramaeans, and Babylonians became largely indistinguishable." One of my biggest concerns is the ridiculous assertion that assyrians always had an assyrian identity and that westerners confused them by calling them other things- when the opposite is true. Also the repetition of the myth that "syrian" is simply a corruption of "assyrian". I also think it's important not to "take sides"- ie don't say "they call themselves aramean but they're really assyrians"- which is exactly what arameans say about assyrians. We should just use the nuetral term "syriac".--Monochrome_Monitor Sources:

• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

You are obviously right on all of this. I have invested a lot of time trying to clean up this area of Wikipedia, but the "primordialist" stuff just creeps back in when people aren't looking. So these days I am taking a cost-benefit analysis to editing Wikipedia mostly.

It isn't necessary to remove all mention of Assyria in the Syrian-Aramaic context. It's a case of

dab (𒁳)

07:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

actually, I should add that

dab (𒁳)

07:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Syria- which is a corruption of assyria- but about Syrian/Syriac the ethnonym. Syriacs used to call themselves Suroye, or Syrians. They say that "syriac/syrian" is a corruption of "assyrian". The word for assyrian in syriac is Aturaye anyway, not Asuroye. I'm looking for a completely neutral source on the matter. The source wikipedia uses to say that syriac=assyrian is incidentally "Assyria and Syria:Synonyms"- to which this is a direct response. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

well, it is hard to see how "Syria" can derive from "Assyria" without also "Syrian" deriving from "Assyrian". But this is ancient (Iron Age) etymology, it has no bearing on modern ethnonymy. --

dab (𒁳)

07:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In less controversial related matters, the article Panbabylonism is totally bullshit. It should be called "similarities between jewish and babylonian traditions"- but that's not panbabylonism, which is now considered psuedoscience. It was this brief movement supported mostly by german assyriologists which basically said that the cultures of ancient levant if not most of the world are directly derived from babylonian culture. This has different streams, including the "Star-myth" theory started by Hugo Winckler that every ancient near eastern culture/religion is based on babylonian astrology/astronomy. A more controversial stream (with antisemitic under and overtones) is the Bible-Babel theory, which says that the jews "stole" the hebrew bible from "aryan" babylon (similar to the way afrocentrists say greeks "stole" from "black" egypt). Panbabylonism is now only supported by assyrian nationalist "scholars", including Simo Parpola... who is used as a source on many assyrian articles. Here's a great rundown of panbabylonism.[24] Also the article Lebanese people is littered with phonecianism... some of that is my fault (added the category "phoenician people" (as part of an effort to categorize canaanite peoples) and then reverted it but was reverted back.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Lastly, how far should we let the nationalism go? For me calling arameans assyrian is out of the question, as is appropriating babylonian achievements because both assyrians and babylonians came from the akkadians... assyrians in contrast to babylonians were pretty barbarous.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I am really happy to see a critical editor with the energy to tackle this mess, believe me. But it would seem that you yourself somehow are partisan in this? I mean, this is about modern ethnic identity, while "Aramaeans" and "Assyrians" both are ancient nations. How the hell is it "correct" or "incorrect" to call your ethnic group after some ancient group you are loosely descended from? It's like calling the Swiss Helvetians, or the Germans Teutons, or, for that matter, the

ethnic essentialism

that naive souls apparently feel the need to constantly insert.

I would still object to your statement that "Panbabylonism is totally bullshit". That's like saying that "

dab (𒁳)

07:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no stakes in the issue. I'm still learning and navigating the nationalist waters. When I say "call the arameans assyrians" I meant call the ancient arameans assyrians.... not the modern identifying ones. When I say "panbabylonism is totally bullshit"- I mean the article. The article describes something which is totally unrelated to panbabylonism. THIS is panbabylonism. It's like ancient aliens stuff.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, I see. Your having no stakes in this and still being willing to engage makes you a very valuable asset. But I do not understand your issue with the Panbabylonism article. It isn't excellent, but it clearly describes something directly related to the page you just linked. The Hebrew Bible, as redacted in the 5th century BC, was clearly and very stronly influenced by Babylonian culture of the 6th century BC. The influence can be overstated, I suppose, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the influence was there. For people in the 19th century, this was pretty much an earth-shaking revelation while we can more or less file it under "meh, stands to reason".

Of course, the ancient Aramaeans and Assyrians started out as two completely separate branches of the Semitic peoples. But their de-facto merger took place by about the 6th century BC, so for any time later than, say, 500 BC, it is perfectly reasonable to treat "Aramaean" and "Assyrian" as a continuum, or melting pot, or ensemble, or something. --

dab (𒁳)

08:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A valuable asset, eh? Am I being recruited for a mission? That's not what panbabylonism is about. Panbabylonism is a theory that every religion in the near east if not the world is based on mystical interpretations of babylonian astrology. The bible-babel school also does not say there was "influence". It says there was a direct appropriation. As for arameaness, aforementioned mixing was Chaldea/Aramean babylon. But in the levant arameans were always a large majority... well till the arabs. Incidentally you mentioned semitic peoples, that's an article I have a long struggle with. Check the talk page discussions if you dare.[25][26] I have the bear bones page in "progress". [27]--Monochrome_Monitor 08:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The mission known as

Hugo Winckler prägte dann den Begriff Panbabylonismus, um den von ihm postulierten weitreichenden Einfluss des assyrischen Denkens auf den israelischen Gottesgedanken zu beschreiben, den er als Echo des Astralkultes ansah. Ihm folgten Peter Jensen und Alfred Jeremias, die einen Großteil der Erzählungen des Alten Testaments aus dem Gilgamesch-Epos herleiteten.

It used to be a serious hypothesis, and it was partly correct even though exaggerated; weitreichender Einfluss des assyrischen Denkens auf den israelischen Gottesgedanken is pretty much what I said, and meant, and is probably also partially compatible with the way you prefer to phrase it. Make of that what you will, but let's save our breaths to tackle the actual nonsense in article space. Sigh, and the "Semitic" thing is idiotic. When I say "Semitic peoples", obviously I am referring to what is treated, for some reason, under "

As am I. I don't understand why they cant just be under "Semitic peoples". In fact the article "ancient semitic speaking peoples" is quite new. On panbabylonism "the fundamental tenets were eventually dismissed as psuedoscientific"[28]--Monochrome_Monitor 18:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

yeah, I am afraid the thing you are pointing me at strikes me as postmodernist pap. I do not deny that "Panbabylonism" and what not is tied up with the Orientalism and even Antisemitism of its era. This is what I meant by "exaggeration". This doesn't mean, however, that its "fundamental tenets" were "pseudoscientific". This is nonsense. They were, at best, wrong (I would say, partly wrong), but being wrong does not amount to "pseudoscience", the same way

dab (𒁳)

09:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note I am not defending Panbabylonism as "correct" any more than I am defending phlogiston. I am just saying it is so easy to see its flaws today that it tends to obscure the parts that were actually correct and novel, but by now are so unremarkable that we fail to even recognize them as achievements. --

dab (𒁳)

09:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm against post-modernist pap as much as anyone. I'll quote a different source. [29] "Almost in scholastic isolation Kugler demolished the great edifice of Panbabylonism theory piece by piece. The Panbabylonists had no answer to the criticism put forward in his books Im Bannkreis Babels (1910) and the monumental Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel (1907—13), both of which unfortunately were never translated into English. With the death of one of the movement's leaders, cuneiform philologist Hugo Winckler (1861—1913), Panbabylonism was scientifically dead by World War I and then banished for ever to the lunatic fringe of pseudoscientific writings." Phlogiston was an obsolete scientific theory. Panbabylonism was psuedoscience. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

fine, it was "banished for ever to the lunatic fringe of pseudoscientific writings" after 1913. This means that anyone arguing "Panbabylonism" in 1920 would be as guilty of pseudoscience as someone arguing for phlogiston in 1790. I recognize that implicit in "Panbabylonism" is the heavy emphasis on Astralkult, not just "biblical mythology is taken from Mesopotamian sources". While biblical mythology is, of course, largely taken from Mesopotamian sources, the thing about Astralkult had, I completely agree, always been slightly mad. --

dab (𒁳)

15:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The oldest parts of biblical mythology are undeniably mesopotamian. However it's mostly influenced by ancient canaanite religion. And you have to give it credit for its novel ideas. Monotheism for one.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Re your edit comments on these pages today, the Ancient Semitic Speaking Peoples article was split from Semitic languages, not from Semitic people. So "merging back" would result in a different outcome to the one you are proposing.

The separate question of merging Semitic people and Ancient Semitic speaking peoples has been discussed on the talk page there, so you might find it helpful to review those threads before making your case on the talk page.

fair point, thank you. I rephrase to the effect that the material split off the languages article should have been merged into the existing people page. --

dab (𒁳)

20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it should've! :) --Monochrome_Monitor 01:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC) My thought is that the current article could be made into an article on "semitic race", which is indeed an obsolete category. However there should be a new article based on ancient semitic speaking peoples renamed to semitic peoples which talks about the ethnolinguistic group, the religion/language/culture of the protosemites, their origins, and their ancient civilizations. And in passing mention modern populations.--Monochrome_Monitor 14:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That is, of course, the obvious approach (e.g.

dab (𒁳)

15:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. And Indo-Aryan peoples vs Aryan race. But two users on the talk firmly believe that semitic peoples is a made-up thing that should not be a page.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

they are wrong, of course, and hopefully, Wikipedia process should not be stalled indefinitely just by people being wrong, but I have to say I don't blame them because "race" is one of the most broken topics on Wikipedia, barring none. Probably an effect of American society being on the brink of a race war, there is no way around the fact that Wikipedia is based in the US and en-wiki is disproportionately affected by US biases and politics. --

dab (𒁳)

07:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In proof of wikipedia's cognitive bias I assumed you were American.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

it's true that I am not, but I do hope I would be making exactly the same point if I was, seeing that it has nothing to do with my own person :) --

dab (𒁳)

15:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

To be fair we did invent the internet.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Note I made edits to Assyria. It's still strongly assyrianist but that's inevitable. At least now it doesn't claim modern religions come from assyrian "star myths",aka panbabylonism. I also found this gem.[30]--Monochrome_Monitor 00:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you copied or moved text from Christian symbolism into Staurogram. {{uw-copying}} Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Check out this category Category:Assyrian ethnic groups. Yeesh. Stop pushing your spurious assyrian identity on neighboring peoples who happen to be christian and speak aramaic! When you think about it the idea that all middle eastern christians are assyrian in origin is completely ridiculous. Assyrians were a minority in their own empire.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I know, it's pathetic. They are far from the only group doing this, but still, the "Assyrians" are a particularly pathological example of this. It's clearly a "First World problem". Syriac Christians are clearly an oppressed group in the Middle East, but then they move to the West, they are no longer oppressed in any shape or form, but then they lose their religious faith and realise that the identity of "Syriac Christians" is inextricably tied to religion. But they still feel they have an identity even after they become secularised, so they have to construct this artificial crypto-ethno-nationalism and lash out at anyone in their own group who isn't 100% on board with it. --

dab (𒁳)

07:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove the years from Phoenicia in this edit? They even had a source. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

no, man, the reference probably confirms that Byblos was inhabited in the Early Bronze Age, but it's (a) a dead link and (b) has nothing to do with the topic anyway. "Phoenicia" is the term for the Canaanite culture in classical antiquity. If you want to discuss Bronze Age Canaan, there is already an article for that, it's at

dab (𒁳)

18:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

{{uw-editsummary}} Eric ^talk 13:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Any specific article / edit you want to address here? Just slapping a template on my talkpage isn't going to tell me what you want from me. --

My post did mention Christ Pantocrator when I placed it via Twinkle. But before posting, I looked at your contributions and saw that you rarely give an edit summary, so you might consider it a general request. It makes things easier for your collaborators here if you provide them. Thanks in advance for doing so. Eric ^talk 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

On the rare occasion I provide an edit summary it's usually something like "deleted bullshit".Sometimes I include a shout-out to the editor before me, like: "stop adding bullshit".--Monochrome_Monitor 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice collaborative attitude. Eric ^talk 03:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

not my attitude. My attitude is that I will give an edit summary if I expect I am doing something controversial or at least non-obvious. Or I will start to give edit summaries on a specific article when challenged. Look, my edit count is in the six figures, I guess somewhere near a quarter million. Yes, many of these are minor, fixing my own typos and so on. But the burden of coming up with a description of what I am doing, just because someone might be watching, even if it takes only one second, would translate to several days full time work over my entire edit history. I try to be cooperative but also efficient. --

dab (𒁳)

08:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, dab, my last comment was directed at MM. I don't want you to have the feeling you're being watched closely: Christ Pantocrator is on my watchlist, I noticed an edit without an edit summary, then looked at the diff out of curiosity, saw that the edit was helpful, then saw your contribution history and didn't see many edit summaries, so I hastily posted the message. I now regret that if it came across as peremptory. I understand your desire to save time by skipping the edit summary step. But that can then cost even more time for others not familiar with your work who might feel compelled to check the edit. A little edit summary can spare someone that time, especially if they've come to know you as someone who's here to do good work. You are a prolific editor, while I am more of a roving copyeditor (nitpicker?); that may explain any high-handedness I show regarding edit summaries. Thanks for all your good work here, and sorry if I came across wrong with the template. Eric ^talk 12:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

it's fine Eric, you had the right to ask of course. --

dab (𒁳)

14:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I know. I was being sardonic, not implying my attitude was appropriate. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

everyone's fine. The important thing here is to realize that the guidelines are just that, and that what really counts is

dab (𒁳)

12:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

{{uw-npa2}} ^Talk/_Stalk 00:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not attack you, I suggested you may have a conflict of interest because you are personally invested in the topic. This is a fair point to make, if it was an "attack" it would follow that nobody is allowed to call anyone out of editorial bias. Now I would also point out to you to please

hello seljuk empire origin kınık(tribe).kınık and kankalis different two group.. this is False information--Osman bey (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't dump random inscrutable claims on my talkpage. --

dab (𒁳)

19:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the fact that the page for arameans is "aramean identity" while assyrians is "assyrian people". It's like we're indulging one nationalism as legitimate but not the other.The community is very diverse and we let assyrianists dominate the arena because they are politically active in the west. Obviously this is also because of anglo-bias, ie, because of the zeal of British missionaries and 19th century Assyriologists "assyrian" is the favored term for syriacs, (I know syriac refers to a language but I consider it a nuetral term in light of the fact that syrian now refers to a nationality) but it doesn't have to be this way. Most people don't know people calling themselves assyrian exist, nor arameans. In a world of ideas accessible information shapes reality- and wikipedia has chosen a side before the discussion has begun. Basically my proposal is either make the aramean article as assertive as the assyrian or the assyrian one as cautious as the aramean.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Also, Category:Assyrian_Christians_by_denomination This category needs to die.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There is one article about this people known as "Assyrian people, also known as Chaldeans, Syriacs, and Arameans". This is a question of

But that article does focus on Neo-aramaic speakers in northern Iraq. It does not have nearly as much relevance to levantine christians who think themselves aramean, let alone maronites who think themselves phonecian. Syriac christian is not a real ethnic group, all of the neo-aramaic christians in the ME cannot have one common origin (well, unless you count proto-semites) and they never developed a homogenous pan-syriac identity. Each generally thinks the other is part of their group, and while I think its silly to base Assyrian peoplehood on spurious ties to akkad or ashur (rather than very real ties to ninevah), the people called "Assyrians" are a distinct ethnic group which is mostly endogamous. Syriac in my view is useful as a nuetral ethnoreligious/linguistic grouping, but not as a catch-all term. There are distinct communities of neo-aramaic-speaking christians, with distinct dialects and distinct foods and distinct churches, there are many cultural similarities (ie, most of them say "shlama") but these similarities are more a result of a shared language and shared religion and a shared experience under the Islamic powers that be than anything. In the end they can call themselves whatever they want, they'll still be unique ethnic groups, if ones with a history as simple and linear as they'd like to imagine.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As for the tag team, yeah, the aramean faction is less politically organized. For instance the category "Aramean Wikipedians" was deleted with the justification "there's already an 'Assyrian Wikipedians' category, and the original Arameans don't exist any longer..." And that guy is allowed to delete categories. Of course I agree with you on your proposals, but we'd have to be careful about it. Assyrians can be reasonably called Assyrians (modern), and we'd handle the stuff from the christianization of the neo-assyrian empire and after as history with the caveat that some claim to be descended from akkadians/Old Assyrians and this is a subject of nationalist rather than historical debate. Assyrians percieve any attack on their nationalism as an attack on Assyrians, and we have to recognize that they are a distinct group and not bury them under "assyrian identity". Its not the assyrian that's problematic from a historians perspective, its claims to have a continuous and direct descent from the Old Assyrians. That reminds me, Assyrian continuity needs to be TNTd. We need to make Parpola off-limits.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I sympathize with all you say, and this is exactly the kind of topic I would be up for researching. But I find I cannot develop articles on complex topics while at the same time fighting edit-wars against organised trolls. So you have my support, but I doubt I am going to invest substantial effort into this topic. Regarding "continuity", I guess this is similar to our "Panbabylonian disagreement". My position is something like duh, trivially there is continuity. Probably every human alive today is "descended from the ancient Assyrians" genealogically (identical ancestors point). But the distinction between "Aramaeans" and "Assyrians" disappeared before 500 BC, so the modern appellations are just "team names" without any actual semantic content. The reason for the distribution of Neo-Aramaic today is the Neo-Assyrian Empire, because Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian Empire. The question of whether the implied linguistic continuity should be labelled "Aramaean" or "Assyrian" is not meaningful.

I readily accept that there is an ethnic difference between Levantine and N Iraqi Christians. It still makes sense to group them under "Syriac Christans", and then develop coverage of subgroups simply based on ethnographic literature. The same way it makes ethnographic sense to group

dab (𒁳)

06:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The key arguments of panbabylonism have been rejected in mainstream historiography. I showed you lots of sources for that :P I understand your reluctance to take arms against a sea of assyrian nationalists.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

sigh, we agree on the "Panbabylonianism" part I think. It's a semantic problem. You have to be, and remain throughout, aware that "Panbabylonianism"=Astralkult. If you succumb to the suggestive interpretation of "Panbabylonianism"="mostly all taken from Babylon", which the term does not mean, then it also becomes false that it has been rejected.--

dab (𒁳)

09:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My interpretation of Panbabylonianism is both AstralKult and Bible-Babel. I think you're wrong about "mostly all taken". For one, that's not what Bible-Babel is about. It's more like "all of it is stolen". For two, the notion that Hebrew religion is Mesopotamian in origin has its roots in defunct hyperdiffusionist theories. The Hebrew religion is Canaanite in origin-it's indigenous to Canaan. This misconception is that the similarities between Mesopotamian and Canaanite religion are due to borrowing or contact. They are actually due primarily to a common origin in Semitic religion- the difference is Assyro-Babylonians recorded their ideas first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs)

Alright. As I said, I am sure we will basically agree, already as we are both ready to be led by the actual evidence. Here is my general view (I am not an ANE scholar, nor has this been an area I invested a lot of effort in, so my view is certainly open to review).

• The Astralkult thing is a 19th-century red herring.
• "Hebrew religion" is Canaanite, already because the Hebrews are Canaanites. The Hebrew Bible gives a valuable albeit heavily filtered/redacted account of "Hebrew religion". The core theology (Yahweh, El, Elohim, etc.) is all Canaanite. <-- this is the part where I agree that "Hebrew religion is Canaanite". This concerns the 8th and 7th centuries BC or so.
• A lot of mythological elements in the Torah (not the core, perhaps, but much of the most iconic stuff, as in Moses, Joseph, Noah, etc.) is obviously Mesopotamian in origin or inspiration. That's just a pedestrian observation about cultural contact and has nothing to do with "stealing". I do not agree that parallels between, say, Moses and Sargon of Akkad are somehow due to parallel evolution of some Proto-Semitic mytheme. This is not how mythology works. Especially seeing Mesopotamia and the Levant were within easy travelling distance throughout the Bronze Age. This isn't "hyperdiffusionism" in my book ("hyperdiffusionism" would be, e.g. Buddhist influence on the Druids, or stuff of such calibre)
• Second Temple Judaism (5th century BC) was a project to re-model elements of inherited Hebrew religion after the template of Babylonian religion. The Torah basically consists of Hebrew ("Canaanite") oral tradition heavily edited to conform with Babylonian templates.
• The entire thing was once again re-interpreted to conform with Greek philosophy (Platonism) in Hellenistic Judaism (3rd century BC). Once the entire Hebrew tradition had been re-cast in Hellenistic terms, Christianity is little more than a logical extrapolation of the process.

--

Sure, "Mespopotamian". It just happened to by "Babylonian" in the 6th century BC when the cultural contact was taking place. The "Sargon-Moses" mytheme just concerns the oddly specific "was picked up floating in a river in a reed-basked as a baby". Of course Christ is a grand synthesis of Tammuz-Dionysus-Sol-Invictus, and of course the Church fathers were not only aware of this but perfectly fine with it too. --

dab (𒁳)

19:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Never heard the reed basket bit. Oh yes that's very specific. But lets talk about important shit. What in your view is the most psuedohistoric assyria article? In my view Assyrian continuity needs serious work.--Monochrome_Monitor 14:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

On second though I think it would make sense to start on

Assyrians and not use the assyrian nationalist definition of self-identifying chaldeans/arameans as assyrians, but rather to assyrians as a distinct group of neo-aramaic speaking iraqi christians.--Monochrome_Monitor

14:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

==Category:Habitat maps has been nominated for discussion==

Category:Habitat maps, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You have recently removed the Persian spelling from the article, there are primary sources for that name from Seljuq era, if you still support removing the Persian spelling, you are expected to take part in the discussion in

no, you are expected to cite these primary sources before inserting material. I have no objection to "Persian spellings". I have objections to uncited material, per Wikipedia policy. --

dab (𒁳)

13:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

talk

) 13:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking because these are primary sources and using primary sources is prohibited in most cases. --

talk

) 14:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand. Of course it will be enough. What I want you to do is, find a published edition of Siyasatnama, locate the form you are interested in in this edition, and cite the edition with page in a footnote in the

dab (𒁳)

15:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

thank you. Surely, you mean

dab (𒁳)

13:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mongolian studies. Since you had some involvement with the Mongolian studies redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RekishiEJ (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dbachmann. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

"extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion

with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016,

a request for comment

established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Good additions, but they need citing; Moon is a featured article, and an uncited section could jeopardise that. Serendi^podous 20:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

diff. --

Um, yes? Your additions are uncited. That's what I was saying. Serendi^podous 09:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

it took me a minute to figure out what edits you were referring too. It was about 600 edits ago for me. I didn't complain about your not providing context, I just provided the relevant diff for future reference. Afaics, my edits were mostly a re-arrangement of pre-existing material. You are within your rights to intelligently challenge any unreferenced statement of course, regardless of whether it was added by me or not, I don't really see the article being "featured" as having any bearing on that ("featured" status is pretty loosely correlated to actual article quality as far as I can tell) --

dab (𒁳)

11:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to finally move the page Semitic people to Semitic race. Care to back me up?--Monochrome_Monitor 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• of course.
  dab (𒁳)
  09:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. I'll be reverted imminently. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 01:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

• [31] and its mirror [http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/]
• [http://www.hunmagyar.org/] (it looks like a sister website, very similar content)

I don't understand why some editors still use that turkicworld.org as a source. It's a personal and nationalistic website full of misrepresented, misleading, mistranslated and falsified sources/contents. For example, There is a falsified version of Angela Marcantonio's works on this website. Compare the Original work "The Indo-European language family: questions about its status" (pdf link) with [http://web.archive.org/web/20161023065309/http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/MarcantonioA2009IELanguageFamilyEn.htm turkicworld's version]. It's funny how this turkicworld guy adds "Türk" and "Türkic" to every content which he falsified/misrepresented/mistranslated them. Plus, that website is related to

This guy is still here? He has been doing this for the best part of a decade now. Your request is certainly reasonable and I have gone ahead and added the sites to the blacklist[32][33]

I am not using my admin buttons much these days, so I may be ignoring some red tape here (my admin account dates to 2004, when it was "no big deal" and you were trusted to just do whatever is good for the health of the project). If my addition is reverted you will just have to take the bureaucratic route.

--

dab (𒁳)

09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. Seems he will never abandon English WP.

talk

) 12:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please help me with overhauling Assyrian continuity. I have already done the intro with sourcing. In general we need to delete the bullshit "they always considered themselves assyrians" and the ridiculous characterization of Westerners denying their indigenous identity when it was westerners who gave it to them. We need to have a section on how the term assyria was used- geographically, endonym, exonym, referring to mosulites, etc. Once again PLEASE HELP--Monochrome_Monitor 05:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure this should even be a different page from Assyrian nationalism. The question is very interesting at its core, iirc it boils down to the similarity of the names "Syria" and "Assyria", which have been conflated since the effing Early Iron Age, so there is very little point in "resolving" the question by studying Bronze Age etymologies of the names. This "continuity" crap is just classical "

Oh yes. It's like saying the modern Britons are ancient Britons because the names are the same! We should merge. But seriously, I'm going to need you to do a bit of work here too. :P--Monochrome_Monitor 21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I have this bottom up approach, where I research the details for the sub-articles before I go on to tackle the fought-over "main" articles. But do let me know if you need me for something specific. --

dab (𒁳)

19:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, then a good starting place is

Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, which Assyrian nationalists like to say is directly descended from Akkadian and emphasize "Akkadian inflections", forgetting that Aramaic in general, as well as Hebrew, have Akkadian words. Another good starting point is Simo Parpola and the Melammu Project. You may not have heard of him but he's a crazy person used as the prime source for Assyrianists.Without his citations articles on Assyrians would be near-bereft of psuedohistory.--Monochrome_Monitor

09:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This book is a must-read. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that

I don't really understand why you changed that article to be a redirect to a redirect... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Because, developing the

dab (𒁳)

10:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstood your question. Never mind, it was just a typo. [34] --

dab (𒁳)

10:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at

I don't know why you made the edit you did on Shield of the Trinity. First, I doubt whether "econverso" is even a word. Second, as explained on the linked image page File:Trinity knight shield.jpg, according to the Michael Evans journal article, the text in the links connecting the outer nodes to each other reads "Non est • nec e converso", while the text along the links connecting the center node to the outer nodes reads "Est et e converso" -- and of the two, the "Est e converso" text is more significant (the bidirectionality of the outer links wouldn't surprise anyone, while the bidirectionality of the central links might be a little surprising to some). AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

sorry, I only noted the nec e converso, I didn't see that the est also has e converso. It was probably fine as it stood. For the Middle Latin spelling econverso see e.g. here --

dab (𒁳)

10:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

as for "surprising", I don't think that given "A is B" the statement "B is A" can be considered surprising (but neither is "B is not A" given "A is not B", the surprise is entirely in the lack of transitivity, i.e. "A is not C" given that "A is B and B is C"). --

dab (𒁳)

11:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dbachmann -- Google Books doesn't work well on my home computer; I'll try to view the link later on another computer. However, the phrase "e converso" makes sense as a preposition which governs the ablative case ("ex") followed by a neuter participle in the ablative case ("conversum" nominative, "converso" ablative). As a single word, it doesn't make much sense (though apparently sometimes abbreviated into that form).

Also, the surprise you're referring to is that the diagram as a whole is inconsistent, if the assertions are interpreted in simplest logical form. However theologically, "the Son is not the Holy Spirit" and the other five negatives of that type are all rather uncontroversial. By contrast, some who would accept "the Holy Spirit is God" would be a little surprised by "God is the Holy Spirit". That's why a few forms of the diagram have the EST consistently going toward the center, even if the text has to be mostly upside-down (see File:Trinidad-Anglican-Episcopal-Coat-of-Arms.svg etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The three texts on the perimeter links unequivocally read econverso rather than e converso (i.e. there is no space). The texts on the radiating links are, as the description for the image file notes, "obscured"; but on the bottom (vertical) link the letter e and the scribal abbreviation for con are both quite clear, again with no space between them. I would suggest that the caption is changed back to econverso. GrindtXX (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

GrindtXX: the spacing may make it look like "econverso", but "econverso" is not really a word in the Latin language -- as the manuscript scribe and most of the original readers of the manuscript probably would have been aware. It was this shared background knowledge which made it possible to abbreviate by omitting word space, but a literalistic transcription would convey a misleading impression to modern readers who do not share such knowledge. I don't see how adding a word space is too different from resolving the scribal abbreviations... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Econverso may not be good classical Latin, but it did have currency in the middle ages. It appears in Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus (2002 edn.) as an adverb meaning "conversely"; and the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, under convertere, cites six instances of econverso in use (from Adam of Balsham, Michael Scot, William of Ockham, John Gower, and two archival sources), as well as others that do split the words (see here). When you get to open Dbachmann's Google Books link, you will see that that is quoting a passage from Stephen Langton that uses the word three times within a discussion of the nature of the Trinity. I would see adhering to the spacing in a quotation as equivalent to adhering to archaic or eccentric spelling. GrindtXX (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It's no big deal guys. GrindtXX is right, econverso is perfectly fine in Middle Latin. AnonMoos is also right, you wouldn't spell it that way in classical Latin. It's up to the editor how to normalize manuscript spelling. Both choices, e converso and econverso are valid, you would just try to make sure that your overall approach within your edition is consistent. I didn't mean to start a controversy on a non-issue, and I am happy with spelling it either way. --

dab (𒁳)

09:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

GrindtXX -- You may have some valid points, but I don't really see the "Shield of the Trinity" article as a suitable place for displaying raw medievalisms / scribalisms (or for explaining them at length), since the many of the readers of that article will have difficulty enough with clear basic simple Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it was just an example of a scholarly (Ashgate Publishing) work on Middle Latin which normalized nec e converso as nec enconverso that I googled. I'm just saying that it's in use, not that it's the only right way of doing it.

On your point to GrindtXX, I agree, and I suppose the underlying issue here is that we have no decent coverage on Middle Latin anywhere. We seem to have a fair summary at

dab (𒁳)

06:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dbachmann. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dbachmann. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I must ask that you immediately revert your edit to

you are right, I thought it was semiprotected. It's been a long time since I have even seen a fully protected article (and should know better than tread in parts where there are such). --

dab (𒁳)

18:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

first, I apologize again for barging in like I did. I don't have any real interest in this, I thought I was just fixing a minor tone issue.

I certainly agree that this thing is "debunked" in the sense you say it is. My entire point is that it isnt encyclopedic to say "X is a debunked conspiracy theory". As I said, the "Moon landing hoax" is much, much, much more solidly debunked than this recent... thing. And yet the article correctly doesn't open with "The Moon landing hoax is a debunked conspiracy theory" simply because that isn't an encyclopedic or objective way of putting it, because "debunked" works more as a slur than as an objective statement. That's really all I am trying to say, hope this is making sense.

So, the point here is not a factual disagreement, but rather the spirit in which the articles should be written, or the vocabulary we choose to represent controvesies. I doubt there is "consensus" on this tbh, because I know the way "consensus" is spoofed in politically charged articles like this. That's also why I have long stopped even trying to touch topics of this kind, so do with my input whatever you think is best. --

dab (𒁳)

20:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there's no disagreement on factual grounds. I never got that impression from you. I also agree that it's less encyclopedic to describe it the way it currently is described. I think one thing worth pointing out is that I don't believe this state (in which this article should be treated differently) is a permanent one. When attention dies down and there are fewer editors trying to shift the POV of the article into portraying this as a actual controversy instead of a manufactured (and frankly, ridiculous) one, then you can count on me to support a change to a more ideal wording. Mostly because, at that point, wikipedia's goal of informing the reader won't be undermined by the current schadenfreude.

Tell me all about it.

20:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

yes, this is my hope too. Either attention will die down and it will be possible to treat this as one of many WP:FRINGE pages. Or, I suppose less likely, evidenceis corrobated and it moves out of WP:FRINGE. I do expect that attention will die down and the page will become more easy to maintain. At present, the way I undertand it (and the reason why this even came to my attention), it is impossible to judge this on its own merit, because it is in essence a proxy war related to Trump, i.e. if you are pro-Hillary you will think this is "fake" and if you are pro-Trump you will be more willing to think there is "evidence", not because of any inherent interest in child trafficking or the like, but simply because of the conclusions you have drawn from the failure of the media to report objectively. If you have good evidence that the media will lie if they have an incentive to, you will, as a rational actor, be much more reluctant to accept anything is "debunked" simply because the media tells you so, regardless of the actual truth value of the topic under discussion.

At the core, this is part of the discussion on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the mainstream media, even if it isn't phrased in this way. Therefore, because the credibility of the mainstream media is the real question, it isn't useful to show it has been "debunked" by the mainstream media. Wikipedia has no way of solving this on its own because we depend on "reliable sources", which at this point most certainly does not include the poular/mass/mainstream media, but until somebody writes about this academically, we simply have no sources to go on.

I am saying, we cannot cover this properly because we are part of it, as part of the problem of the circularity of "what are reliable sources". So there is no satisfactory solution at this point, we just have to wait for proper research to be done on whatever is going on in American politics atm. This will take ten years at least I imagine, and the research cannot be done by involved parties, i.e. by Americans (or, at least, Americans with a political agenda). --

dab (𒁳)

08:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You make some really good points there, especially about this really being about the reliability of the mainstream media. And your conclusion, while not necessarily the way I might phrase it, is a good description of the problem. Given the outlandish nature of these claims, I have hope that interest will die down soon (except, of course, among those most devoted to defending or attacking the Clintons, whom I hope are a very small segment of the population), long before the issue of the reliability of MSM can be settled in the public consciousness. I'm already seeing a bit of a railroad effect, with a current proposal to rename the article "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" put up in response to a (much more reasonable, IMHO) proposal to rename the article to "Pizzagate". The rationales given are more of the same "we must emphasize that this is wrong!", which seems to me to be true, but already accomplished. Further pushes to denigrate the subject don't seem to me to be improving the article, but weakening it.

But of course, there's nothing to do but 'fight the verifiable-objective-and-encyclopedic fight', as it were. I hope the backlash to your edit and argument didn't sour you too much; there's really quite a bit of genial discussion going on, it just tends to get drowned out (and occasionally tainted) by the bickering.

Tell me all about it.

16:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Baba Yara Stadium page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Dbachmann. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, Lotje (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

I thought you should know, this edit of yours from September seems to have introduced references (<ref="WP:BOMBARD"/>) that aren't displaying right. —

thanks for letting me know, I think I've fixed it now. --

dab (𒁳)

14:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dbachmann, this article mentions Godefroy Durand (born 1832; died later than 1890) was a French draughtsman and engraver. has other information. Since you created the article you might have more information on the specific details on birth, place and nationality, and adapt accordingly. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk

I see. Commons claims he was British and was born "18.." (consistent with 1832) and died 1895 (consistent with "later than 1890"). My information is simply taken from the MB page linked. This seems to be the best "source" we have at this point, it's not like commons feels compelled to cite any sort of references for its "Creator" pages.

VIAF has the following information, collated from various online repositories (without any particular credibility):

Durand, Godefroy, 1832-187. [Sudoc ABES, France National Library of France]

Durand, Godefroy 1832-post 1890 [ISNI, National Library of Poland]

Durand, Godefroy 1832-1895 [German National Library]

Durand, Godefroy (French painter and draftsman, born 1832) [Getty Research Institute]

There seems to be consensus on "born 1832", and uncertainty regarding the year of death, with "post 1890" the most credible. He seems to have been Belgian by birth, active in France before 1870, and active in Britain after 1870, in which sense he is a "British" or "Victorian" artist. His life after 1890 seems to be completely unknown, and "1895" is probably just a misadaptation of "post-1890" (misinterpreted as "died at some point in the 1890s"). This reference has "1832-c.1910". --

Hey Dbachmann. I think you're recent editing, with a note on top of the Psalm pages where numbering differences occur, is a good idea. But, at least to my eyes the expression "Greek (Vulgata)" looks like it might imply that the Vulgate is written in Greek. Would you object if I switched the wording on both posts to say "Greek / Vulgate" instead? Unless I'm misreading your intent somehow and there's a good reason for the phrasing being the way it is. I know my way around the Hebrew psalms a lot better than the Greek/Latin Psalms, so I thought I'd check first. Regardless, it's good to see that someone else is paying some attention to the individual-Psalm articles. Cheers!Alephb (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not objecting at all, and I see the problem. Of course I just wanted to express that the so-called "Greek numbering" is the one used by the Vulgata, including all the medieval manuscript images used to decorate the Psalms articles, in the hope that people might pay more attention to placing these on the correct page. --

dab (𒁳)

14:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know if you are.[35] I knew I had one somewhere but I've lost it. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

they have found us out my preciouss... always burrowing, prodding, nasty hobbitses. --

dab (𒁳)

18:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryans&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Iranians&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 14:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say, please make a complete sentence. --

dab (𒁳)

09:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

...falls on the 18th, right? This edit feels like vandalism to me, but the longstanding date was also unsourced. Can't look for a source right now so I figured I should run it by someone with a clue. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea, we should just tag it with {{

dab (𒁳)

18:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Man, I miss the days when Wikipedia used to be the "encyclopedia that slashdot wrote". I am well aware that online harassment can be a real problem, but now we have a "Board" who is so oblivious as to write with no apparent sarcasm in the vocabulary of pure Orwellianism (Board's Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces). They might as well have written "we are meddling busybodies and you will have to route around us if you are going to get anything done". No, not "as well", of course, as that would have exhibited self-awareness. I am an old fart by internet standards, I was socialized online in 1993, and I am not going to pick a fight with these people. I'll just try to keep working on the encyclopedia as long as they manage not to completely break the system, and quietly hope that there will be enough people with an engineer mindset working on this to counterbalance the growing ballast of people with an apparatchik mindset that are invariably going to accrete in any bureaucracy. It wasn't avoidable that the project was going to be poisoned by this. It's still sad to see this has happened. --

One thing I do conclude from this is that I will strongly recommend people stop donating to Wikimedia in the future. Wikipedia needs money for hosting costs. And that should be it. If there is any leftover to pay for Boards and Committees and their "community advocacy", this means that the Foundation has definitely too much money, and needs to be starved of it. As soon as we get server outages again and every cent has to go into paying for infrastructure, the project may also regain its sanity as a grass-roots community effort. --

dab (𒁳)

09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Safe spaces? All the more reason to be glad that I stay away. (Season's Greetings, old friend!) rudra (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

happy ... Equirria, rudra :)

I revert you for the reasons explained on talk, TL;DR - we need more discussion first, because if a move is needed, we have to consider some other names / splits / merger too, first. It's a complicated mess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. --

dab (𒁳)

11:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bovis scale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bovis scale until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that you would create an article about such a highly esoteric matter, without adding any of the reservations present in the variant of this article in German, while a discussion on the talk page of Daniele Ganser and in fact the whole article are deemed unnecessary. lmaxmai (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this was ten (10) years ago. German Wikipedia didn't even mention the term at the time. I came across it, wanted to look it up, and noted that Wikipedia was unaware of it, so I tried to quickly research it. --

dab (𒁳)

06:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please know the formatting policies, despite being in Wiktionary for thirteen years. Check especially یارا for example, see some of the things I've done there. –

yeah, I haven't really spent thirteen years on Wiktionary, the prevalent passive-aggressive attitude of editors put me off during a number of years. My impression had been that the atmosphere had generally improved, so I started contributing a little more recently.

I spent several hours researching a quite difficult word. You appear to have done some copyediting, some of it deteriorating the information I had given. Then you inserted the comment "cleanup Everything. This is atrocious". This really reminds me of the good old days of Wiktionary with ocd gatekeepers obsessing about template formats and ill-advised guidelines (often misrepresented as "policy") but completely ignoring quality of content.

I can hope that you represent an archaism in the project, but if the old attitude is coming back I'll just stay away for a few more years. As will probably most of the editors who could contribute actual expertise. --

dab (𒁳)

09:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@

t・c

) 04:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@

t・c

) 04:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

{{Db-csd-notice-custom}} WWGB (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, please take care who you template. I commend you for dealing with copy-paste moves, but I am just the guy who created the redirect back in 2006, no need to tell me about it. --

Hello. If you didn't notice this topic, here's a link. It might be helpful to you. [36] .

Also, don't mind the people pushing Serbian POV. Tesla was born in Croatia, them ignoring sources won't change that. Here's the link:
[37]
. 141.136.223.49 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edit is correct. Tesla was born in Kingdom of Croatia which was then a part of Austrian Empire. Everyone agrees he was born in Smiljan. Smiljan was then a part of Kingdom of Croatia. Kingdom of Croatia was in that time separated on "civilian" and "military" administration. The source says everything there is to know: "After many pleas from Jelecic, in 1850 the King's proclamation, which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers, was finally announced...For Military Frontier, the King decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation." Croatia,Slavonia and Military Frontier constitute a single land - Kingdom of Croatia. However Kingdom of Croatia has disaggregated provincial (Croatia,Slavonia) and military administration (Military Frontier). While it is correct to say that Tesla was born in Military Frontier, it is also correct that he was born in Kingdom of Croatia. It is not correct to say that Tesla was not born in Croatia, but he was born in Military Frontier, because Military Frontier was a part of Croatia. I referenced a link to the source with Tesla's statement "I was born in Croatia". With this sources there isn't much to discuss, but if you continue, you'll find how difficult it is to deal with some people who "guard" the idea that Military Frontier is something completely separated from Croatia, while they will provide no sources. 141.136.223.49 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not with the facts. Yes, Tesla was a Serb born in the Kingdom of Croatia. The problem is with (a) Serbian editors who want to avoid all mention of "Croatia", (b) Croatian editors who want the article to read "Croatia, Croatia, Croatia, and btw, Croatia", and (c) the effect the two groups have on each other. The solution would be to either grow up and act like adults, or alternatively take a step back and let non-Serbian non-Croats do the job of presenting the very simple facts of the matter. Of course neither is going to happen, and I have learned to be relaxed about this. --

Indeed, relax and Tesla will lead the way. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the birthplace per sources I had referenced. That's an established fact and no one can dispute that. However, I still haven't found any credible primary sources about Tesla's ethnicity. I don't think that the problem can be solved by asking others to grow up. It can be only solved by credible secondary sources that are based on primary sources. Even contemporary newspaper articles that I've been posting on talk page (and that they have been deleting) are claiming Tesla to be Croat/Serb. People will continue to argue until we have sources that we can all agree upon. I tried to start a discussion where we could start dealing with the question by gathering all sources on Tesla's ethnicity, but some people didn't want that so they have banned that discussion. You can see it here: [38]. Look at what the sources claim: Serb, Croat, Austrian, Slavic, Hungarian, Yugoslav, Romanian.

Look at what one editor said: "Stop cherrypicking". I was trying to gather all sources on one place and I was cherrypicking? Isn't cherrypicking exactly the opposite, to gather only the sources that benefit your opinion?

So, yeah, they don't even allow sources to be posted on the talk page. I guess that some people could draw their own conclusions from the sources, instead of blindly reading the article, so the best thing is to hide the sources from them. ;) 89.164.196.4 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to introduce into the article the fact that Tesla was born in Croatia, and I was reverted. I did not attempt to discuss his ethnicity, afaict it is undisputed he was an ethnic Serb, descended from immigrants that came to Croatia one or two century earlier from the general region of Montenegro (maybe in the 1680s? I did not research it and made no claim either way).

It seems uncontroversial to me to call him an ethnic Serb as (a) his father was an orthodox priest, and (b) he joined a Serbian student club when he was in university.

This is what the article has, and I have no problem with it and I never even tried to discuss this. So I have to ask why you are taking this up with me. The only thing I complained about was the refusal to mention the fact that he was born and grew up in Habsburg Croatia. --

dab (𒁳)

11:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Tesla's connections to Croatia are banned from the article by a certain group of editors. But that doesn't matter much with sources published on talk page. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusion from that sources. In my opinion the sources are decisive, so there's not that much to discuss. However, your attempt was stopped with bad faith in mind, in my opinion. There were indeed numerous discussions about Tesla's birthplace, but there are new sources which weren't reviewed back them. The most important is the source which tells us about the kings proclamation. Then there's the Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia.

Sorry to say, but Tesla's ethnicity is very much disputed. Orthodox faith does not mean a Serbian ethnicity, nor there is a such source that claims that. Funny how some editors have pushed that as an established fact. Even the source which would claim that in the 19th century the most orthodox people were Serbs, that we could not use to prove that Tesla was a Serb. That would be synthesis. Was there a Croatian or Montenegrin student club, but he preferred Serbian? Even in that case we can't deduce his ethnicity without synthesis. It far too subjective to deduce his ethnicity by the student club he joined, song he wished on his funeral and so on, and that's exactly the problem and the cause of all disputes. Until real sources are found the disputes will persist. I tried to search for the real sources. I found 19th century newspaper articles claiming Tesla to be both Croat/Serb (you can see them in the history of talk page as they are deleting them constantly). So even then his ethnicity was disputed. It seems that Tesla was a supporter of Yugoslavia so he didn't want to declare himself as one or another. He thought that all south slavs are one and the same nation. According to that we should call Tesla a yugosalv-american. I could find numerous sources to confirm that was his opinion. By declaring him as a Serbs the article actually goes against his own opinions, as he had never declared himself to be a Serb nor Croat. Serbians are very rigid to declare Tesla to be Serb as they are using him as their brand.

So to solve all the disputed, I tried to find real sources/documents that would speak of Tesla's nationality/ethnicity. Unfortunately that's was too hard and with such bad faith from other editors I didn't want to waste my time. I researched consensuses from US and Austrian Empire. I found a ship manifest from when Tesla emigrated to US. He's mentioned there as Sweedish, but he didn't fill that by himself so there was an obvious confusion. Maybe there would be more info on his immigration papers. It would be great to find those, or to find tesla on US censuses.There's also an Austrian census that had "ethnicity" column but that was before Tesla's time. It would be great to find Tesla's father on that census. So, as you see there are documents that can be found, but no one has the time to do that, and until that is done, the disputes will persist. Well, not that much because a group of editors managed to push pro-Serbian POV to the article and they block everyone who tries to temper with that, as they did with you. Basically, everyone who tries to question their POV is one against five of them so he stands no chance. They are discussing in bad faith and ignoring sources, some of them are directly lying and using personal attacks. For instance [39] this post goes against Tesla's statement and the secondary source which directly quotes the kings proclamation, but that doesn't matter to that editor. His own opinion matters more. 141.138.51.93 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry if you are not interested. I contacted you because you were worked over like me and other editors by the same group of people. Ok, good luck to you. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.51.93 (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

oh, I am interested, I am just trying to see both sides of a dispute. Also I spent a lot of time with this kind of problem back in 2007 or so. I still support Wikipedians sinking their time into fixing nationalist problems, but I also feel that I have done my bit and then some. --

dab (𒁳)

07:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That kind of problems can only be fixed with sources. Well, even that isn't enough to some editors who would really like if the history happened the way they imagine it. Let's take Tesla's birthplace problem for example. There were many pointless discussions ans a lot of time wasted, yet nothing was accomplished until I found good primary sources (Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia). Even then, some pro-Serbian editors were trying to claim that Tesla was not born in Croatia, against his own statement. That's not surprising when every historian in Serbia is saying so. Funny how no one of that historians mentions Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia. Then they managed to use Wikipedia rules in bad faith, so they claimed that we can't believe Tesla's statement. He might have lied...or so. Although this is technically true, it's done in bad faith in my opinion. It's against Occam's razor principle. They can not claim that Tesla lied/didn't mean/didn't know where was he born or that he was mistaken. That's a too elaborate to claim without a source that would back that. Ok, so I accepted that and I invested a lot more time to battle with their main argument, that Tesla was born in Military Frontier which was not a part of Croatia, but a separate entity. I spent days investigating four sources to prove that Military Frontier was a part of Croatia, and I finally found a great secondary source that quotes the king's proclamation about the status of Croatia and Military Frontier at that time. It directly says that Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constitute a single land. However, as you saw, even that wasn't enough for some editors who were still claiming to you in your discussion, that Military Frontier is something different than Croatia, against Tesla's statement and against king's proclamation. This is in my opinion done in bad faith. They did not point you to see the sources for yourself as I did in my initial post here on your talk page. They did not want to discuss. They wanted to get rid of you. They also did one more thing in bad faith. The source with the kings proclamation was unknown at the time we had a RfC on Tesla's birthplace. So there's a basis for another RfC, but no one of them is going to open it, since they are happy with their viewpoint in the article. They are ignoring the strongest source. In my opinion we should have a new RfC on Tesla's birthplace. You asked why I'm taking this with you. I don't know why, but I took up the job to inform everyone about the sources, since they are trying to hide them. That's not an easy job to do. I don't want to bore anyone that's not interested to tackle this issue, and most people aren't. Well, that's probably better, because some issues can't be solved without proper sources and I know how hard is to find sources on Tesla's ethnicity/nationality. My contribution here are the sources on Tesla's birthplace. In my opinion that issue is now properly solved.

I saw that you tried to tackle with Tesla's nationality, but I think that your view on that topic is a bit simplistic. For example, I found sources that are claiming that Austro-Hungary had national and local citizenship. Another thing is that Austro-Hungary appeared to the outside countries as "Austria". Everyone who went abroad was an "Austrian citizen", although they could be Hungarian. So Tesla's statement that he is disowning Austrian citizenship doesn't mean much. He could have had Hungarian national citizenship, but he would still disown Austrian citizenship. There's also a local citizenship and the matter is a bit more complex when you start reading about how citizenship was arranged withing Austro-Hungary. Well, a lot of relations were a bit complicated withing Austro-Hungary. 141.136.246.1 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Celts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You protected this article quite some time ago. Would you mind decreasing to PC1 or unprotecting? --Izno (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's up to you, I'm not watching it. I guess a reasonable rule of thumb is that if you are reducing protection you should also watch the article for some time to get a feeling if it begins to deteriorate more rapidly. --

dab (𒁳)

07:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't unprotect it, which is why I'm asking you. :D --Izno (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the

editsemiprotect}}. The last time the article was unprotected was in the fall of 2010. During that period it had as many as 50 bad edits a month. EdJohnston (talk

) 20:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I do not have authority over "my" protection just because I happened to click the button historically. If you want wider admin attention for this, just post it to

dab (𒁳)

05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

admins taking contravening administrative action. --Izno (talk

) 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I see, sorry, this explains it. This is a stupid rule imho and "unwikilike", but then I am a fossil and would probably consider most of Wikipedia "unwikilike" by now. --

dab (𒁳)

08:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The kind of vandalism that I can see looks routine (or, at least in one case, essentially genre-warring). I won't push the case, but as it is, there's currently a semi-prot-edit-request on the talk page which is so-far unserviced in the past week (mind you, it has seen some discussion). --Izno (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Celts" will always attract stupid or vandalistic edits, and in my opinion it can remain semiprotected indefinitely. This is just my opinion and I have no problem with being overruled, that is, as long as the process of "overruling" is transparent and ostensibly weighing pros and cons by looking at the actual evidence. I make no pretense of remaining involved in or keeping track of the countless articles I may have semiprotected over the years. --

dab (𒁳)

08:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann. A few years ago, you made this edit to an image description. While the image source indeed states it depicts Muhammad, I was wondering where you got "prohibiting intercalation" from. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Good question, I think it was in the description at bnf.fr where the image came from, but I cannot be sure now, this will have to be researched (or treated as unsubstantiated). --

dab (𒁳)

19:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A few hours of browsing later and I've come across the original page on Commons. With some help of an 1879 English translation, I could pinpoint what the page was discussing: intercalation before Islam, its prohibition and an introduction to the Indian calendar. The illustration is positioned specifically in the middle of a line quoting Muhammad, so I'd say the description is pretty much correct :) --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, please make a note of that for future reference! Thanks -- --

dab (𒁳)

20:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Homosexual people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Medieval homosexual people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Dab, can you please look at this section of the article and help determine which links need to go, some of which you also previously stated are unproven. That whole "Alexander" claim, you know.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed it so you don't have to worry.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kosovo (UNMIK) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Template:History of Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was protected by you almost 10 years ago over a banned user edit warring the template. It's very likely that the user in question has left Wikipedia some time after the protection was made. Is it possible for you to unprotect the page?

Category:German tribes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article needs references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

^{Atsme📞📧} 11:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We were editing Languages of Europe at the same time. When I saved it, I may have zapped several of your insertions of the word "Western". It's probably safer for me to let you fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm mostly done with my project on this page now. --

dab (𒁳)

06:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that, back in 2005, you added the image at right to Wikimedia Commons of a cuneiform tablet listing the names of several Sumerian deities, but you did not provide a source for the information given on the page. I recently attempted to add this image to the article

No recollection, but after all the ms. number is in the filename, so, Schoyen Collection MS 2272. --

dab (𒁳)

06:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I really appreciate it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

you are welcome -- although I am not sure the image would pass muster for "PD-Art" these days (the rationale is that it's a "manuscript", but this only works if it is "two-dimensional"). --

dab (𒁳)

06:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Shams Tabrizi (spiritual guide of Rumi)^[1]
• Ghazzali^[1][2]
• Najm al-Din Daya^[2]
• Attar^[2]

They declared Khayyam as heretical, and did not regard him as a fellow-mystic. This further discredits the Sufi interpretation (which is indeed the view of a minority of scholars^[3]).

Avicenna's philosophy

I have removed the line that says: "For decades, he also taught the philosophy of Avicenna in Nishapur".

Khayyam was known to dislike teaching. There are a few figures alleged to have studied with him (Al-Khazini, Nizami Aruzi of Samarcand, and Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani). But it is purely conjectural if they had been pupils of his.

Name

His full name would simply have been Abu’l Fath Omar ibn Ibrahim Khayyām (ابوالفتح عمر بن ابراهیم خیام).^[1] This is as it appears in Arabic sources. In Persian, it is usually just Omar Khayyam (Omar the Tent-maker),^[2] which is also the most widely used name in English according to the GBooks ngraph.

• Ghiyāth al-Dīn 'The Patron of Faith' was not a part of his name; it's just an honorary title (like Hakim 'wise man' which he is often called).

• In his native Persian his last name is simply Khayyam, not al-Khayyami. Also, Persian language does not use the Arabic definite article Al-.

• Abu’l Fath and ibn Ibrahim are simply patronymic adjectives.

So, I suggest we use the conventional name Omar Khayyam (عمر خیام) in the lede and perhaps restore the section that explained the meaning of the full chain of names.

Hello, Dbachmann. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

Thank you for your comments -- they are absolutely on-topic and should be posted to

dab (𒁳)

05:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have divided our discussion into separate sections on the Talk:Omar Khayyam. I will try to add more information and citations. Telementor (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dbachmann. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is about Phaistos_glyphs (resent).
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

21:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Just happened to be visiting the page, and saw the previous trolling, so tried to tidy it up as best I could. Thanks for sorting out some of the code, and editing whatever details I might have missed, or wouldn't be expert on! Culloty82 (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Sakaldwipiya has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sitush (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove Alhazen's pic from the page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham . This pic is now on public domain of iran,its no more a copyrighted materiel https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alhazen,_the_Persian.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.55.63.185 (talk • contribs)

Because the image has no source. It is impossible for us to claim that it is "public domain of Iran" as long as there is no indication where and when and by whom it was published. --

dab (𒁳)

09:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have proposed renaming Category:Knights Templar in modern culture, which you created. Please see CFD Oct 13. – Fayenatic London 18:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:South Asian history has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've sent to RfD a bunch of redirects with which you have been involved. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 4#Western Zone. – Uanfala 20:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

(Having noticed your merge note)

Have I

well, it's supposed to work via consensus between uninvolved bona fide editors. But in propaganda-heavy topics, it's difficult to get enough such editors to even care.

As I see, it there are two topics here, (1)

gender neutral language to see the topics covered in context. What remains is the term "Latinx", as a dictionary entry, to be covered at wikt:Latinx

.

Sometimes, it is arguable to write entire encyclopedic articles about words. These will be extremely difficult and notable words, such as

dab (𒁳)

09:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

this is a purely typographic problem.

dab (𒁳)

14:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That looks better. Thank you for sorting things out. Certes (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi-- Please note

This is not a good idea. I do not find the thing you cite on the page you link, and I also don't see why conventions on the transliteration of Arabic should be under "WP:ISLAM". --

dab (𒁳)

15:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link. I meant

WP:MOSAR, but it's only a proposal. There's room for discussion here, which can be taken up on the MOS talk page. Personally, I support the use of "basic transcription" in article titles, but not in the article body as a requirement, so I would like to see that phrasing changed. However, given the current state of the MOS, we shouldn't make mass changes contrary to it. Eperoton (talk

) 02:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

right. I realize ayin is often rendered as ' due to laziness (' is on the keyboard) but in my opinion this should be avoided at any cost, because it leads to the confusion of two completely unrelated letters. It should either be rendered with the backquote (to remain within ISO1) or ideally with the specialized ʿ character, even if the transliteration is "basic", i.e. without diacritics (ʿ does not count as a "diacritic" but as the transliteration of a full letter). I have been pursuing this approach for at least a decade now; I realize there will never be a unified way for Arabic transliteration in article titles, and that's fine, but at least we should try to use "basic transliterations" that do not lend themselves to the confusion of hamza and ayin. --

dab (𒁳)

14:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So, why not try to gain consensus for this approach at MOS talk? Eperoton (talk)

It would never have occurred to me to bring this up at MOS:ISLAM, because the question has nothing to do with Islam. The relevant guideline page is

dab (𒁳)

08:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the reason this is in

WP:MOSISLAM is because MOSAR is still just a proposal. I don't know why it hasn't been promoted to MOS, as it seems to be reasonably well developed, aside from the potentially contentious usage issues that we'll now have a chance to discuss. Once we iron those out, as a veteran editor, you may have helpful experience on how to get it over the hump. I'm not very active at the moment, but I'll do my best to help. Eperoton (talk

) 00:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I am taking this opportunity to improve

dab (𒁳)

09:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

ok, I did my research[40]; not quite done, but at this point I think I can say pretty much everyone uses ʿ as recommended by Unicode. The only notable exception appears to be the ALA-LC standard, which seems to be due to its being published in 1991, i.e. just before the publication of the Unicode standard, and it hasn't been made "Unicode compliant" since. Based on this, I would strongly recommend for the purposes of our guideline: either do not render ayin at all (in loose transliteration of well-known names, such as

dab (𒁳)

19:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice work! You've convinced me to use this symbol from now on instead of the inverted comma I've been using in running text. It looks like we don't have strong disagreements in the discussion at MOSAR (though, as I just wrote there, there's another editor whose input I'd like to get), but in practical terms we were discussing several separate though related issues, and it will take a bit of thought to flesh them out into concrete proposals. Do I understand correctly that you're proposing altering the basic transcription scheme, rather than expressing a less categorical preference for basic transcription over strict transliteration, which I've been arguing for? Eperoton (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how I feel about "basic transcription". I guess I judge its usefulness on a case-by-case basis, and I will always check how relevant English-language sources spell the term in question. It's somewhere between "anglicized" and "close" transcription, I suppose. But in what contexts is it useful to have three spellings, viz. Iraq vs. ʿIraq vs. ʿIrāq? I have to think more about this. My entire point so far is, if you're going to represent ayin at all, let's recommend you render it with the recommended Unicode glyph ʿ. --

dab (𒁳)

08:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the current guideline in preference for common transcription when it's available, as it is for Iraq. Otherwise, it looks like we may be gravitating toward consensus on some significant changes. Hopefully, we can now channel the discussion into actionable proposals. Eperoton (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

{{uw-ew}} Jeppiz (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

dab (𒁳)

17:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made exactly one edit to the article concerning the map. You undid it, just as you had done with another user, and I have not redone it, instead I have detailed my rationale at the talk page of the article. Seems pretty

WP:BRD to me, actually. Jeppiz (talk

) 18:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

so far, sure. Just, why on Earth did you feel compelled to "uw-ew" me, or how did you expect this would be conductive to resolving whatever content dispute we may be involved in? I try to find constructive solutions with people willing to point out content issues, but I am not in the habit of trying to debate with users who see every superficial difference of opinion as an "edit war" they have to win. --

dab (𒁳)

09:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Unintelligible rubbish

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I never clicked on the history tab, just assumed it was a new page of crap, and prodded. My bad. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dbachmann. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Dab, long time! Hope you're doing well. I see you moved

Happy to see you. Yes, this is exactly my concern. There should be a difference between Wikipedia and knowyourmeme.com

The

WP:NOTE

-coattails of actually notable topics.

If the "meme" is really considered noteworthy, on its own terms, for the purposes of Wikipedia, then let

Deus lo vult be about the medieval topic, and let Deus vult (2016 Internet meme)

be the page about the meme, to be judged for inclusion in the project on its own merit, and not on that of the First Crusade.

I had a similar experience at Kek (mythology), where I was trying to write an Egyptological article, but people thought that clearly, the 2016 presidental election, is so notable it, ahem, trumps all of history. Who cares about your dusty egyptology, we have google results showing "Kek" is a terribly important internet meme. I tried to explain that notability is relative to the page topic, but we ended up with "see also Pepe the Frog".

I hope you see where I am coming from. It's not about what people "are likely to look up". Of course 2 million people will look for the 4chan meme for every one person looking for an edition of the Historia by Robert the Monk. That is, for the next couple of months, when the meme will be forgotten, and the notability chasers will have moved on to disfigure other articles, leaving behind a page about a 900-year old battle cry disfigured with some short-lived headlines form October 2016 nobody will care about in October 2018. This is not how we used to operate. Back in the day it was the "Pokemon Test". Sure, write articles about your Pokemon characters and defend their notability there, but don't spam unrelated pages that just happen to share their names.

--

dab (𒁳)

20:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am not putting this well enough. I would actually be interested in the recent history of Deus vult. I came across references from the 17th to 19th centuries suggesting it became associated with the theology of just war in modern contexts. The "meme" would just be an ironic extension of that. After all, the rise of ISIS closely paralleled the conquests of the Seljuqs, and the atrocities reported from ISIS closely parallel those reported by Urban according to Robert. The parallels are eerie, and I am sure they can be covered based on actual literature. The "meme" is probably too recent to be incorporated into this without becoming guilty of "original research", but I am sure we can cover 19th to 20th century theories of just war and "Muscular Christianity" etc. referencing the phrase. The "meme" would then just appear to be a kind of cynical or postmodern extension of such serious theories. Citing that the phrase was found as graffiti on a mosque in Glasgow will not be helpful to this unless it is put into the greater context by some respectable secondary source. --

dab (𒁳)

21:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Local Supercluster

Our Universe

Actual Universe