User talk:Dbachmann/archiveF

Bounties

Leiber dab (yeah, i'm learning some german), I agree with you on both counts. I thought about it too. My first problem was, I couldn't figure out how bounties given to users work. Does a user decide to get the bounty, and after that other users are excluded from working on that article? If not, how does the bounty get shared? Also, I thought giving money to wikimedia would help the project in two ways in one go - with the article as well as financially, and I hope that for most serious editors here, that should be incentive enough to try to claim the bounty for wikimedia. As for working on circum-Paninean articles are concerned, you're absolutely right. Afterall, all we know about people from that era is the work they did -- we hardly know anything about their personal lives -- not even when exactly they were born. Let me see if I can change it from Panini to Ashtadhyayi. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

:)

Dakpowers has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Dating the Rigveda

Thanks for chipping in on the Rigveda Page. I decided to use your talk page because 'my' skepticism about the oral transmission of the Vedas is irrelevant to that discussion. I was wondering if you can point me to references that show that claims of oral transmission for millennia, with no change even in pronunciation, aren't just tall claims. As I see it, a number of ancient literary works claim oral transmission back to the stone age, but there remains no way of verifying such claims, though special allowances seem to be made for religious works. Kingsley2.com 15:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ban

Do you think you could block me for the next 41 hours? I have a lot of work to do and Wikipedia is getting in the way!

Thanks — Yom 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. It wouldn't prevent me from actually browsing the site, so it'd be useless.

Yom 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Return of the banned

The Rajput loon (the banned guy -- I can no longer remember all his socks) is not only reverting Rajput to his POV version, he's stalking me and reverting all my edits. In articles where he knows nothing, has never participated, no edit summaries, just reverts. Can he be blocked? Zora 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Chaldeans

I've unlocked Assyrian people if you'd like to put in your change now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mannaeans

I think we need semi-protection at Mannaeans... There is a very persistent anon with three different IP numbers who is constantly reverting to his version, that is silently blanking out a couple of paragraphs without explanation... He has ignored invitations to explain on the discussion why he wants to do this, and just simply reverts without any explanation all day long for 4 or 5 days now... Thanks for looking into this... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi dab. May I request the protection of the article Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) from anon editors to prevent further edit-warring? Miskin 23:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lingua Ignota -- undeciphered?

I've put some discussion up at Talk:Lingua Ignota that you might want to look at. I thought this would be perferable to starting an edit war. CRGreathouse 03:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource in Ancient Greek

There is an ongoing initiative to create a Wikisurce in Ancient Greek. Please provide your comments at meta:Requests_for_new_languages/Ancient#Ancient_Greek_Wikisource.  Andreas   ^(T) 13:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

Hi Dieter, are you watching Ancient Macedonians? I think it needs some work, a couple of people have been turning large sections of it into something that approaches a POV fork of Ancient Macedonian language, and seems rather full of WP:OR for my taste. I've been trying to do some cleanup, but at one point I capitulated and just blanked a whole lot - it would be better to do a proper rewrite but right now I don't find the time and energy to do it alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bhagavan = God, or not

Hey dab, could you comment on Talk:Bhagavad_Gita#Song_of_Bhagwan_vs.Song_of_God please, whatever your opinion may be. Thanks and regards, deeptrivia (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source of your "Turkey" concept.

It is really hard to understand what you are really trying to promote, except it seems you are mixing (you have a misconceptions on) ethnic, regional and couple other very distinct concepts. History of X, you are talking is not as unified as you claim. That may be because of your limited understanding of the region. It is obvious that you have no background for the use (terminology) of this word in Turkish or English, as a proof, you have been collecting the items from other articles, which by themselves are very coherent. It is not nice that without explanation, you see the right in yourself to destroy the whole document. The link in German does not prove that the author who created the document knows what he is doing; maybe only idea could come out of it is that you might be that author. You really need begin to explain us the meanings in your mind of the words “Turkey”, “Turkish”, “Anatolia”, ”Ottoman”, etc..--OttomanReference 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked that link. The content is history of the Turks. If you ant to develop that page, you can create an article history of Turks and deal with Turkish nationals. However, you have to build your reasons, why that page is not history of Turks.--OttomanReference 23:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is already an article created with the same coverage, check it; History of the Turkish people --OttomanReference 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

template History of Turkey

I just checked the template that you are talking about. I did not notice it before but if you look at the items, it is history of "TURKS". If you have created that template, you need to correct it. It does not include other states, or groups during the periods that it refers to, or change the Turkey to Turks. Thanks--OttomanReference 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I belive your response reads as history of Turkey is the history of the region, than the terminology goes as ->this is region now known as Turkey, viz. Anatolia and Thrace <- that is correct. The "Anatolia" and its history page, which once was a single article, builds the links to more than how many articles? :-% , you can count them I guess. I believe on the thrace side it should be "History of Balkans", but someboy have created "history of Thrace", which may be o.k. I did not read the article; the difference between these concepts gets blured with time. For the bar question; you really need to do the work because it is very obvious that the bar is Turkish history. I hope I have covered your questions. Thanks for your interest for a region which is really complex...--OttomanReference 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

what bar? I honestly have trouble parsing your English. I am sorry, but I believe my approach to the subject is straightforward and perfectly in line with WP practice. If you have issues with anything I did, address the point directly and keep it factual, without having me second guess your agenda, or what you seem to imply you take to be my agenda, I am not interested in that sort of game. dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the game you are talking about, I'm very nice and open to you. But the bar is "the bar" you you mentioned in the talk page. It is not nice to tell me that you do not understand what I'm trying to communicate to you without even reading. I do not really understand what your intentions are, because besides blaming people and pointing to "History of X". You did not say anything substantial. Your X is under question, which mixes many things and copies text from different articles, which can be easily concieved as a fork.--OttomanReference 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

the bar is "the bar" you you mentioned in the talk page

Your X is under question, which mixes many things and copies text from different articles

this is just surreal now. I will not continue this discussion. Your English is garbled and I don't know what you want from me. If you cannot make clear exactly what you are talking about, using diffs and links, I can't be bothered to guess. dab (ᛏ) 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Ancient Egyptians Black or not? ==

Hey Dab My position on the Egyptians is clear and consistent. Let me give you an example. When we speak of the Romans, one does not doubt that they were a "white" or at least culturally related to "white people" of today. The cultural relationship is the key. WHen you speak of the origins of western (white) culture and white social norms, and nuances, you will harken to Roman, Celtic, Gaul and Germanic roots and relationships. Those relationships will not be predicated with some talk of a long Negroid link that comes way over from Egypt or Nubia. It's absurd, of course it is. It would be an absurd form of diffusionism. Even when there is evidence that the history of Europe does not start IN Europe, the context is still "Europe first, non-europe second". SO that the European languages are "Indo-European" despite the fact that their origins are outside Europe... (The proper term should be "Asiatic-European".

With Egypt, there is a long convoluted "Caucasoid" link, that although absurd, is accepted. This is called diffusionism. This is in addition to the fact that the Egyptians looked like Black people, they have cultural similarities to other Black people, and their language has changed and spread out only within Africa(not Asia or Europe). The Egyptians live so close to the other Black Africans in physical distance and in cultural history. Egypt traces it's heritage Southward to the pre-dynastic days further south. Egyptian is a Nilo-Saharan language. I see a lot of articles SAYING that Egyptian is similar to Semetic and Asiatic languages, but I see no EXAMPLES, and I have yet to find any, where the STRUCTURE (not the borrowing of loan words BY Semites and Asiatics) of Egyptian is similar to Semetic and Asiatic languages. It would be like saying that Egyptian is a Frankish language because they both have the same endings of feminine words "-et".

So in the same manner, you see superficial and unrelated similarities (some require some heavy duty filtered perspective) between Egyptians and... oh Germans, or Irish... but that is not sufficient to classify them outside of their far stronger relationship between people who live less then 500 MILES from them (nubians, other Africans)! Yet we keep talking about ancient Egypt as "berbers", even though berbers did not exist at that time. Berbers is a colloquial term describing unrelated people in a geographically continuous region of N. Africa and the middle east. So that's the SERIOUS issue, and that's a very fair assessment of the Afrocentric position. IN addition the article is ABOUT the controversy, not about "the final undisputed truth". I should have every right to post every part of the controversy that I feel is relevant (which is agreed of course). But you and others should not omit RELEVANT aspects of the controversy, just because you feel like the part of the controversy that you disagree with is also in there. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh so I forgot to mention, the point: The point is, Blackness is not about just "literal skin color" it is, like Arab, Slavic, Hindu, Latino, etc... a cultural, social, and heritage based concept. I do not cease to become black just because I am lightskinned when most of my family is black. I do not cease to become black just because I have a long nose. That's not the "critical line in the sand". Blackness is not a "physical only" concept, where everyone else is respected in their cultural, social, and ancestrial context. Slavs aren't people with pale skin, piercing eyes, black hair, and strictly speaking "slavic based languages". There's more to them than that. Same with Blacks, and that's why Egypt belongs with them. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"I would like to have a serious article on the genetic affiliations of the Egyptians, but then we would have to get rid of anachronistic terminology like "black identity", "essentially black culture": While these terms may have a meaning in 20th century America, they are entirely meaningless in the 4th millennium BC. The Egyptians were an essentially Egyptian culture, what does it even mean to claim they had a "black identity"? My point is that the Afrocentrist "position" is not wrong, but that it is not even a "position" so much as a slogan or a mantra."

wtf? "were the Ancient Egyptians black?" is a stupid question, as I've pointed out repeatedly, because it is steeped in anachronism, and I've only seen crackpots even discussing it. Sure document the controversy, if there is an Egyptological controversy. So far it seems more like a case of "Black Panthers vs. Reason" than an actual sholarly issue. I wouldn't say the topic is "Afrocentric" but rather US-centric, because Ancient Egypt is actually part of Africa, while this is about sensitivities of "black" US Americans. Discuss "race + US" all you like, but leave Egyptology alone.

please try to take in that it is precisely because "blackness" is a social construct (as you admit above) that it is entirely pointless to talk about the "blackness" of Ancient Egyptians 5000 years ago. Your notion of "blackness" is a product of US sociology, 16th-19th century slave trade etc.; Ancient Egypt has nothing to do with it. I have no inclination to continue to discuss this thoroughly unacademic and unencyclopedic topic. Afrocentrism is an encyclopedic topic for sure (a sub-topic of US sociology or whatever). We may mention the infatuation of certain Afrocentrists with Ancient Egypt. It stops there, this has nothing to do with Egyptology whatsoever. dab (ᛏ) 16:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

Dear Dab,

My esteemed opponents will probably scream that I'm "spamming", but I need some help. From someone who values NPOV. Various editors are intent on rewriting the Muhammad article in ways that I find offensive and deeply biased (and I'm not even a Muslim!). They are advancing a novel interpretation of NPOV, which is that NPOV requires that all POVs be supported by verifiable evidence from reliable sources and if the POV can't be "proven" to their satisfaction, then it should either be deleted, or mentioned in a way that indicates it is untrue. Their POV, of course, is always supported by verifiable evidence from reliable sources and is TRUE. As I told one of the editors, he's getting away with this because we seem to be momentarily short of Muslim editors, and there's not many other folks willing to speak up for Muslims these days. I put out an RFC, but then no one reads RFCs these days.

Dang, I'm getting sick of this constant finger in the dyke emergency biz. I'm investigating a whuffie-based wiki, Everything2, but they seem to have a problem with lack of server capacity. Zora 01:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora (who has in fact been spamming the talk pages of editors she deems as "Muslim", and now article talk pages such as Talk:Dhimmi[1] to get them to join the Muhammad discussion) is misinterpreting WP:NPOV.

My position is that if reliable sources states something as a simple matter of fact, and no reliable source contradicts them, then we can state it as a fact, with citation. If a religion believes otherwise, then we can state the existence of this belief as a fact.

Zora claiming that the statements of reliably-sourced fact must be hedged according to mere existence of belief. Specifically, we have reliable sources (Watt, Brittanica, for starters) which say that Muhammad founded Islam. Zora is saying we must state, "Non-Muslims consider Muhammad the founder of Islam," and accuses those of us who call him the founder of "Muslim-bashing."[2]

To follow the road she suggests is to justify sentences such as "Non-creationists believe humans to be members of the Primate family" - after all, many dispute this, so doesn't WP:NPOV demand the hedge, followed by the creationist position? I say, no: that would be a misconstrual of NPOV, which is not meant to be applied in isolation. In both instances it's solved by considering that the beliefs promoted by the opposition are not represented by reliable sources (although of course the existence of those beliefs are, and should be noted where they're on-topic).Timothy Usher 04:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Trojan Horse fragment.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Trojan Horse fragment.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

5th Millenium BC

Please assume Good Faith Edit's, unless you have evidence that it was not. No need to assume vandalism just because you disagree with an edit. On reflection, I should have added "according to calculations such as James Usher's" - but I see that someone has fixed this by moving the similar paragraph from the fictional section up to where my addition was. ^rossnixon 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Please see the Talk:Rajput -- is there some way the damage can be reverted en masse? It is phenomenal nuisance. Please help. ImpuMozhi 15:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Rajput:

You recently protected[3] this page but did not put in a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, article talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Please be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

instruction creep. why keep a manual list when protected pages may be summarized by category? dab (ᛏ) 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because WP:PP gives the dates and reasons in one centralized place. I often get stuck being hte only one to unprotect articles that where protected and forgot about, I sit there for two hours checking everything on the list and removing and unprotecting ones (often 60+) that should be unprotected. That is WITH javascript and WITH WP:PP, without those it would take even longer (say going by the Cat page). If you simply put in protection summaries in the "reason" box, the bot will auto-list it for you, so thats all you have to do to ensure that the page be listed (though userpages are not dealt with by the bot). I hope that clears things up.Voice-of-All^Talk 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

your message

Your warning is misdirected. Existing categories of Indian monarchs and ruling clans of India were superseeded by Impumozhi as rajput chiefs ( a deliberate slur. these were kings and not chiefs) and rajput clans. ruling clans of India is more correct. 192.94.94.105 09:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply re: Muslims

See here Raul654 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

DAB, these articles will never be stable, no matter what language we use, so long there are editors whose involvement in Wikipedia is motivated mainly by religion, and who act as if the conventions of Western scholarship and historical realism constitute in themselves propaganda against Islam. The problem is more one of user conduct, not the specific wording of articles.Timothy Usher 23:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

we have ways of dealing with bad user conduct. If the article is fine and the problem is with the user, the article will remain as it is, and the user will either reform or be banned. There is, however, always room for discussion of the precise wording even of an excellent article. dab (ᛏ) 17:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And these ways are what? The talk page conduct of one editor (I scarcely need to name him) is consistently outrageous, and brooking of no compromise. There's no pretense whatsoever of building a good encyclopedia. So long as he stays under WP:3RR, and barely within the boundaries of WP:NPA with his discussions of editors who are out to spread propaganda against Islam, there's no recourse. There's no WP:SECULAR, no WP:REASON, etc. Meanwhile, misconceptions about WP:NPOV abound, to the point where it's thought that we have to compromise between the points of view of editors to the talk page contra WP:NOR, or compromise between the statements ofreliable souces and anonymous posts on sectarian websites. I've not yet seen an editor blocked for violations of content policies, so to blather on about them, as WP does, is mere jawboning.Timothy Usher 10:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I a wikistalker?

Dab, I need some admin advice. I have a problem with another user, User:Deucalionite (maybe you've come across him too over some Greek article, I don't know). Anyway, this editor has created a large number of articles which I hate to say have some rather severe quality problems. Some pushing of pseudo-linguistic fringe theories, mostly unsourced, sometimes just isolated unresearched factoids turned into a new article without any context, sometimes copyvios, that sort of thing. I decided to be upfront about it and told him openly I was going to do a tidy-up campaign on most of his work ([4]). He at first reacted in a relatively composed and halfway constructive way, but then he got enraged over a clash we had over another matter (at Arvanites), and now he's all in arms against me, calls me "dishonorable" and other things. Today I felt I had to put a {copyvio} tag on a new article by him (Stradioti), in a matter I had politely warned him about earlier ([5]). He went wild and reverted the tag ([6]). I don't want to go this alone as I don't want to be seen as wikistalking - I'd appreciate if someone stepped in and either counciled him to be more constructive, or tell me if I'm going too far. As matters are now going, this is steering towards a user-conduct RfC some time soon, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Late reply: Thanks for your advice about the RfC. The only reason I'm not doing it right now is that I'm not sure I'd have a second person to certify. Of course Deuc. has clashed with several people in the past (Aldux, Macrakis, Adam Carr, Pmanderson I think), but no one seems to have gone to the trouble of scrutinizing his whole oeuvre and address the general problem of his work the way I've been doing. I sure wish somebody else would take this up and try to offer Deuc. some way out of this that doesn't involve losing face too much. You know, "honour" seems to be a big big topic with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Benares

Dab, it is not nonsense but there is no verifiable proof that Benares is the oldest city in the world while there is proof for Jericho. As this site states, http://www.varanasicity.com/history-of-varanasi.html, Often referred to as Benares, Varanasi is the oldest living city in the world and as Mark Twain said, "Benaras is older than history, older than tradition, older even than legend and looks twice as old as all of them put together". You have to distinguish between verifiable proof and nonsense. There's no current archaelogical evidence to state that Benares is the oldest city in the world. I think you have to make that distinction. Oral and written tradition stating that Benares is the oldest may not be enough. But I agree with your revert.

Raj2004 17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith?

What about this [7]? Tatra 08:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That was months ago, and all you've managed to do is prove you're a sockpuppet.--Telex 08:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A clear indicator of racist behavior is some how diluted with time? You guys are too self righteuous are'nt you? Bane of wikipedia: Clueless/Trolls having advantage to ban others so as to have there say.

So Dab what do you know about Hinduism or Aryan Invasion theory or rajputs?

Let me hear some words of wisdom on how to form a consensus with a group as obtruse as the one you are heading and I assure you I will give it a shot.

And lastly do not threaten me. It is easy for me to write something really nasty on your talk page. Tatra 09:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

yawn, the incident being months ago means it has been debated at nauseam, I have made clear my stance on several occasions, and it was enough to satisfy the Arbcom as well as every reasonable editor involved. I'm not going to reiterate all this for every choleric kid that stumbles on my talkpage. So even if you are not an actual sockpuppet and have just heard of this on some forum, here are your options: behave or begone. dab (ᛏ) 09:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No. For the record you were about to be defrocked of your ability to ban others just because of this statement. It appears some arbcom members could not stand one of there own loose to a lowly third world creature. Also if you keep threatening me everyday then there will be a point where I will get pissed and will end up saying something really nasty on your talk page. Perhaps that is what you want. So you should refrain from your threats. Why do you choose to not answer about AIT/Hinduism/rajputs? I am engaging you in a debate and I bet I can poke a hole in all your arguments related to these subjects. Tatra 09:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us discuss topics one by one. First we will discuss AIT. I would like you to read: http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html and then tell me what your dissenting thought is. Tatra 09:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

needless to say, I have better things to do with my time than engage in discussion with angry Wikipedia trolls or read ISKCON journal articles. dab (ᛏ) 10:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is written by Klaus Klostermaier who is a professor at a Canadian university and is of German origin and regarded a foremost authority. It seems you have some prejudice that you do not want to shake at any cost. How can one form consensus with you other then agreeing with whatever you say? Tatra 10:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to form a consensus with me. If you smarten up and get polite, you can form a consensus with other editors. If respectable editors take your side, I am likely to listen. I am just not interested in a debate with you. Also, if you do not explicitly state now that you are an editor that was previously banned I will assume that you are, in which case you shouldn't even be here. If you are not, we might run usercheck on you, and then you will need to learn to behave as a bona fide newbie. dab (ᛏ) 10:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Still threatening me. You write and support all kinds of wrong things on AIT and Hinduism page. Why is it wrong to form a consensus with you? Look your prejudice is seeping out. You have made it clear who is in bad faith here. Prof. Klostermaier has debunked AIT completely. Why as an admin would you not want to get his views be reflected at WP? Only logical conclusion is his views who is an eminent professor are in conflict with yours and you do not want to shake yours. Tatra 10:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I don't know what this Klostermaier character was smoking, but a 5th millennium BC date for the RV is hilarious (yes, I did waste time looking at the article now. At least it made me laugh). We should by all means quote it next to Kazanas' 4th millennium date, and Tilak's "Aryans invaved from the North Pole" to put it all in perspective. You may also want to discuss "Aryans arrived on the Indian Subcontinent by continental drift 100 million years ago" with ARYAN818 (talk · contribs). Oh, I see he was banned, oops, maybe you can contact him and Open a discussion forum off WP. Now if you condescend to study WP:NPOV you will find that academic mainstream opinion is to be favoured. Now academic mainstream believes about as strongly in a 5th millennium RV as it does in a RV being written by Max Müller himself. dab (ᛏ) 10:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A professor who is widely published and has written multiple books, (books which are used today in undergraduate and graduate curricula in canadian/american universities) is a pothead? Would you care to expostulate why this guy is not "academic mainstream"? Or is it just since he does not subscribe to the theory of Adam and Eve being the precursors of all human race he is a pothead?

I would like to hear from you the reasons of your "academic mainstream" as to why RV is not possible in 5th mill BC.

Now do not hand wave. I am sure in this round you will be convinced that your position is incorrect provided you leave all your prejudices. Tatra 08:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

now this is rich. First I am accused of being racist for dissing Indian scholars. Now that I am dissing a German scholar, simply for the fact that his article is a joke (I have no doubt he has great knowledge of Hinduism, but he sure as hell has no idea of linguistics or ancient history) you should actually be satisfied: it proves that I certainly do not let my judgement be informed by authors' ethnicities. What the hell do Adam and Eve have to do with Indo-Aryan migration? Of course there was human settlement in India 50,000 years ago. Homo erectus even came to India 1,000,000 years ago. That simply has nothing to do with the Vedas or Hinduism. A 5th mill. date for the RV is impossible. There were no wheels in India at that date, let alone horse drawn chariot (such as driven by Ushas, the Ashvins etc., etc., in the Rigveda). The most probable date for the RV is the latter half of the 2nd millennium. You can reasonably argue to push back that date to the early 2nd millennium. If you really want to stick your neck out, you might apologetically argue for a late 3rd millennium date. Any talk of the 4th or 5th millennia is simply crackpot nonsense beyond rational debate. Believe what you like, but don't imagine to take part in scholarly discussion. Furthermore, Klostermaier does not claim to have established (or "proven") any "New Chronology" himself. He is only reporting with perfect naivete the musings of the likes of Rajaram and Kak, asking himself and the reader "why not", apparently blissfully unaware that he is mixing perfectly sound archaeology with borderline kookery and religious fantasy. So if you like, we can say that Klostermaier expressed interest in these authors, but we sure as hell cannot say that he "debunked" anything. He is apparently completely innocent of any astronomical knowledge, or of any experience with the dodgy 'subject' of archaeoastronomy, so that if anyone claims to have found "astronomical evidence", poor Klostermaier simply takes their word for it. dab (ᛏ) 14:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A little bizzare reasoning should we say? First Klaus is smoking pot and then he is naive. Do universities in West churn out PhD's and retain professors with such qualities? A professor of Klaus's repute and research accepts the theory put forth by other researchers on RV dating as plausible. In today's day and age no one can be an expert in all fields. People are experts in there field and once they a have a thesis then they align with other researchers. This is what Klaus has done. To call him naive is severely being judgemental of his intelligence and integrity. You have provided one counter argument about the absence of wheel as perfect archaeology but this is not strong enough.

Astronomical evidence and the mention of extinct rivers besides others are quite strong. Do you have any counter argument besides the "modern scholars" do not believe them?

Note Kak is an electrical engineer and also a professor of Electrical Engineering at LSU, Baton Rouge, USA. Not a dumb guy should we say. And lastly since you use choicest words against reputable people would you care to divulge what your credentials are?

Also Adam/Eve connection is w.r.t the belief in Christian world that man as we know him was created somewhere in 2200-2500 BC and before that epoch nothing could have happened including people having brains to write and have a religion. Tatra

Don't bother responding to the guy. Check his block log. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Farvahar

Is an Iranian symbol, many Iranians wear this symbol around their neck not because they are Zoroastrian, but because its the most recognised Iranian symbol. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Vedic Accent

I wasn't terribly fond of that sentence myself, but was trying to get Vedic accent in the lead to conform to wiki style. Any other ideas? (By the way, if you were involved in writing that article, it's a nice article; I'd love to see it expanded more). It would also be good to make comparable changes on the Portal:Poetry lead while the article is featured (see the "Language Corner" in the lower right). Thanks, Sam 14:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's great. I'll make the same change on the Poetry Portal. By the way, I also cited the article in the Poetry article - you may want to make sure I didn't do violence to any of the concepts in using. Sam 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Two questions

As this has, utterly without my consent, become the issue du jour 1) do you consider Faisal's comments to Talk:Muhammad to be reasonable and helpful to the encyclopedia? 2) do you consider them unrelated to the use of userspace?Timothy Usher 12:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Abhira

Article has been supplied with citations and references as external link and talk page.You may withdraw unreference tag from Abhira.Holywarrior 16:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush and terrorism

al-Qaeda's destruction of the twin towers would have catapulted them to fame regrdless of who was president. They were already known to the world's counter terrorism units, and were set up to challenge Saudi Arabia and the Soviets, not the Americans. They became a convenient target afterwards. You are right that without terrorists to blame, Bush would have lost that election - but the terrorists he is "fighting against in a war on terror" in Iraq, aren't al-Qaeda for the most part, they're free-moving mujahadeen. Dev920 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the disagreement we have over Bush and terrorism is the same as between Islamism and Islamic terrorism - whether the two are inextricably linked or are separate issues in their own right. However, I cannot find a link to islamic terrorism before I added it - perhaps you could point out where you mean?

Additionally, as I have pointed out on the talk page, it is an issue of accessiblity. "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail." I think causing the casual reader to read Islamism to access Islamic terrorism is unnecessary.

Dev920 21:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, but the issue we seem to be having is that Islamism and Islamic Terrorism are not the same thing; perhaps if you added the islamic terrorism section as a H3 underneath Islamism's H3? Dev920 21:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The section that I added is only the lead section of Islamic extremist terrorism. My reason that we should add it is because, as you so rghtly pointed out, Islamic terrorism is something that is all over the world headlines, and as such, a large number of casual readers who visit the Islam page are, regrettably, going to want to know more about islamic terrorism than they are the religion behind it. Because of WP:SS, I want to provide that access for them.

My reasoning behind Islamic terrorism not being a part of Islamism is that, as has been pointed out by both of us, Islamism is a political movement. Islamic terrorism is not always motivated by political concerns - many terrorists view their role as a religious war, rather than a political issue. I would therefore disagree that islamism is the starting point for Islamic terrorism.

So I think a h3 would be the best compromise for us - the objections of other users should surely not be the criteria for not imroving an article's access? Dev920 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you are basically saying there is a group of users who thinks that article changes on Islam is their perogative? Dev920 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the Wikipedia community as a whole would "feel strongly " about the inclusion of a h3 section on Islamic terrorism in the Islam article. Dev920 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? To the rest of the world, like Sean531 said, currently one cannot think of Islam wthout thinking of terrorism. With that knowledge, I want to make Islamic terrorism accessible to the casual browser, like WP:SS recommends. But I'm being stopped because you think the community that hangs around on the Islam page won't tolerate it. Dev920 10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

my position is clear: I will agree to have the link, but not the section. Your insistence to shove what you think is important down the throat of the 'casual reader' of other articles is related to Wikipedia:Main article fixation. "To the rest of the world, currently one cannot think of Islam wthout thinking of terrorist". What sort of statement is that? I honestly don't care much about "Islamist terrorism", there's civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some fanatics blow up things from time to time. Fine, go and write an article about it. I don't see how this is connected with Islam itself, and I certainly don't let it affect my interest in historical Islam. Your statement might be true for illiterate TV junkies (especially USian, I am sorry to say, although I realize you are British; here in continental Europe, I honestly don't see that informed discourse on Islam is much affected by this stuff) -- certainly not for any educated person with an interest in Near Eastern history or culture. dab (ᛏ) 10:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

When I said the rest of the world, you know I meant non-Muslims. I am not talking about the insurgents over in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think most of them would count as Islamists. Islamic terrorism is connected to Islam, being Islam is its motivation. Islam therefore becomes relevant. As for intelligent discourse, most conversation I have on Islam lead back to terorism, and I go to a grammar school, so I don't know who you talk to (I suspect other Muslims). I am not fixated on a main article, if you check my contributions list I edited far more than Islam and related pages yesterday. But this clearly isn't working. Shall we go to an RfC?Dev920 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

look, can you just accept that I disagree with your proposal, for reasons detailed about five times now? You are free to whip up a strawpoll at Talk:Islam, and if your proposal gets a significant majority, I'll still disagree, but I'll yield. There is no point in discussing this between the two of us any further. dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC) There would be absolutely no point, as you well know, for holding a straw poll on the Islam. It is overwhelmingly watched by Muslim editors who won't brook a single mention of terrorism (which is why there wasn't one until I added it yesterday, you you seem determined to forget) because they believe that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Having Bhai saab rv and write "It does not belong here" without explaining why is evidence of this. So the only question is, if we need consensus, and you're right, we do, it has to be thrown open to editors other than the biased members of the Muslim Guild. Your disagreement which you have outlined five times is that Islamism is a subtopic of Islamic terrorism, which I have tried to rebutt five times as well. And succeeded, in my view, but then I would say that. Dev920 10:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have watched Islam for a long time. It is a favourite haunt not only of Muslim, but also of ferociously anti-Islamic editors. They tend to cancel each other out over time. Obviously, I will not take responsibility for individual editors' actions. Again, I agree with your addition of the link, and I am prepared to defend it against the Muslim zealots you seem to fear. That's it. I am not a Muslim, I do not feel strongly about the topic, and I gave you my considered opinion. As far as defending the terrorism link goes, I am on your side. dab

"but also of ferociously anti-Islamic editors."

Really? who? Also, what link is this you refer to? I don't know what you mean. Dev920 11:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ladakh copyedit request

Hi Dab. Could you go through the Ladakh article once, and make some improvements in the prose if possible? Copyediting does require the review of multiple editors, and I've gone through the text so many times that I have gotten too used to it to figure out what to do to improve it. Your contributions will be appreciated.deeptrivia (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (Indian mathematics and astronomy)

Thanks for your recent effort to clean up the ahistorical speculations in the articles on Hindu Astronomy and History of Mathematics. I haven't had the nerve or knowledge to edit these articles. (One minor defensive comment: the problem is not that the early astronomical dating is based on archaeoastronomy; it's that it's poorly done archaeoastronomy). --SteveMcCluskey 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As you noted on my talk page, the astronomical analysis is impeccable. However, impeccable astronomy, combined with culturally inappropriate estimates of precision, makes for poorly done archaeoastronomy. Your discussion at Image:Vedic_pleiades.png is an excellent demonstration of the point. BTW, the thumbnail of the image on Hindu astronomy only displayed as a broken link in my browser, which weakened your point in that article. I widened it to 400 px and it displays, although not very legibly. --SteveMcCluskey 13:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Semitic letters

Earlier we had a discussion regarding the pages on various semitic letters (which had Syriac, Phoenician, Arabic, and Hebrew forms), but I don't remember where that was, so I'll talk here. Why exactly should the letters be restricted to Phoenician letters and their descendents, as all Semitic scripts are obviously not descended from Phoenician (e.g. Ge'ez & South Arabian), it would be incorrect for the article to be on the semitic letters and not include all known cognates. I realize that the template is for phoenician letters, but would you object if I made a similar template for Semitic letters and replaced the Phoenician box in all of the articles with this box? — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 02:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond more tomorrow, but for now, let me just quote the first lines of Waw (letter):

This article is about the Semitic letter. For other uses of "Waw" see WAW.

Waw (wāw, also spelled vav or vau) is the sixth letter of many Semitic alphabets, including Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac ܘ, and Arabic و (in abjadi order; it is 27th in modern Arabic order). It expressed a labial approximant, IPA [v] or [β].

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is throughout all of the articles, not just on waw (just as a precaution, please don't change the wording until we finish our discussion). Why shouldn't there be an article on the letters of Semitic abjads (admittedly with gaps where cognates do not exist)? Along with a Middle Bronze Age letter (when possible with some certainty) and any possible corresponding Egyptian hieroglyphs, to show the connection, of course. If the article was meant to be more directed at Canaanite descendents, then it properly should have shown the Latin and Greek descendents, but right now it's more geared to Semitic letters, which is in itself useful without having to ignore non-proto-Canaanite alphabet descended scripts. I'm off to bed now. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 06:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rajput

Dab, I had put the matter on talk page about scythic allegation on Rajput and it is uncontested on the talk page.I would like you to add the matter by yourself.The name controversy too was uncontested long back but it is in archives now.Do you want the same this time.Holywarrior 10:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gelonus

Hello, I need your help with this page. It claims that Gelonus is the "archeological site Bilske Horodyshche (Більське городище) localized beside villages Bilsk in Poltava Region." This data seems highly dubious to me. Is this identification generally accepted in the mainstream science? It seems to me that some people already make money from this claim, e.g., "there still (sic!) exists in the Poltava region a brewery that produces "Helon" brand beer" and Helon, as explained further, is the Ukrainian transliteration of Gelonus. If this stuff is apocryphal, we should eliminate it. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Near East warfare taskforce

I see you’re a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East. Might you be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Ancient Near East warfare task force? See its talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ancient Near East taskforce? Neddyseagoon 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mesopotamia.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Mesopotamia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thuresson 19:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Vordic

Sorry. It wasn't obvious that it was an OCR scan, wouldn't it be better to make a user subpage and then transfer it over to the main namespace when it's finished? -- bdude Talk 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hindu astronomy

Thanks for adding your wise and well documented comments on Kak's extravagant astronomical claims to the article on Hindu astronomy. These speculations really need to be countered by serious research.

Incidentally, I'm pleased that you cited two sources. In my more fanciful moments I think Wikipedia should adopt the Washington Post's Watergate rule; don't publish anything until you have two independent sources. --SteveMcCluskey 14:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

FourthAve is back

A great question since I was blocked for a year by Tony Sidaway. I've since learned about wiki Bureaucrats and Stewards. Why has this wonderful thing happened?

---

what question and what wonderful thing? dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive uncooperative new user

Hi dab, I'm afraid we'll need somebody with your authority to have a word with this (semi-)new user User:Sshadow. He's engaging in a revert war on Souliotes, with the obvious political agenda of minimizing every reference to the Albanian contribution to the history of this heroic Greek place. He's making blind-revert edits like this [8], removing perfectly good references and replacing them with {unsourced} tags. He's been refusing to use the talk page, but has been throwing around accusations of "vandalism" and "destroying articles" against me in edit summaries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hey Dab, we've butted heads in the past but I wanted to stop by and thank you for all the effort and time you put into articles relating to Germanic paganism. You have produced many valuable contributions and enriched not only Wikipedia but everyone who reads it with your rigid thoroughness and aggressive fact checking - Wikipedia needs a lot more of this. Again, thanks! :bloodofox: 20:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"unreferenced" tag

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that issue. The templates that are put on top of pages exist for a good reason, namely that they replace a number of more specific tags within the articles. Pecher ^Talk 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources ?

I need your views on this. Thank you. --- Faisal 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that

Next time you'll be luckier. Pecher ^Talk 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

yep, you got it right. Pecher ^Talk 12:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranian languages

Hello. I just saw the new map you have put into the article, and it is partly wrong:

• it leaves out many smaller, but very important Iranian (most of all Eastern Iranian) languages
• it differenciates between "Dari", "Tajik", and "Persian" although - in fact - these are different names for the same languages (like "American", "English", and "Australian" or like "German", "Austrian", and "Bavarian"). After all, the map does not differenciate between "Pakhto" and "Pashto" either, although the linguistic differences between "Pakhto" and "Pashto" are bigger than between "Dari" and "Farsi".
• it leaves out the areas in Uzbekistan where Iranian languages - most of all Persian - are spoken.

Please correct the mistakes. Otherwise, I will delete the map from the article and revert to the previous map (which was created after a long discussion).

The best thing would be creating a new map based on this one:

Thanks.

Tājik 17:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments noted - but this does not change the fact that the map - be it your's or someone else's - is wrong. Jost Gippert is not reliable if he rejects the Encyclopaedia Iranica (look up "Dari" in the Encyclopaedia Iranica!). In here, he has clearly made a mistake and it would be totally wrong to promote that mistake in Wikipedia.

You have created the map, so I leave it to you to correct the mistake. Otherwise, I will delete it from the article and revert to the previous map ... as a provisional solution, until a better map is created.

Tājik 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. I will correct and improve the map. But till then, it will be deleted from the article because it is wrong. Tājik 17:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your map may be prettier, but it wrong. And your so-called "source" is clearly ooposing the information available in the Encyclopaedia Iranica which is an authoritative source. I told you that I am going to correct your mistakes - but till I am done with it, the old map will be in the article, not your map which is wrong. Not every source is "reliable" ... Tājik 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with the first one: your map differenciates between Dari, Tajiki, and Farsi, although all three are the SAME language. Just different names. The problem is not only the color of "Dari" and "Tajiki", but the mistake that you have chosen a totally different color for "Persian" (which is THE SAME LANGUAGE as "Dari" and "Tajik"). At the same time, you have chosen the color of "Dari" also for "Luri" (which, btw, can also be considered a dialect of Persian). Text from the Encyclopaedia Iranica:

"DARĪ: name given to the New Persian literary language at a very early date and widely attested in Arabic and Persian texts since the 10th century ... Darī [...] seems to have been a variety of Pārsī, as is confirmed by the expression Pārsī-e Darī ... It was only natural that several centuries later literary Persian, based on the speech of the northeast, bore the same name ..." [9]

Tājik 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Second mistake: your map totally exaggerates the size/ammount of areas where Pashto/Pakhto are spoken. In this case, it even opposes the official ethno-linguistic map of the (former) Afghan government (which at that time was dominated by Pashto-speakers!): [10] Tājik 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mop and bucket request

It seems I've attracted a secret 'admirer'. Would you mind dropping a note on User_talk:195.158.167.131? Thank you. SWAdair 08:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Daily dose of Rajput terror

Next incarnations:

• Jujinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• 220.227.48.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Next incarnations:

• Thuram L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ribery r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've now written a little template for making the daily reports more efficient. Please see User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Rajput report, and what it does here and here. I'll appreciate any ideas or modifications on how to improve it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Die Methode über das Vandalismus-Noticeboard hat ja ganz gut funktioniert, nur die haben Bimbisara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vergessen. Übernimmst du den noch? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:Indefblockeduser}}[[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shivraj Singh / DPSingh]]

Yeah, well done folks. Going back to sleep now, but wake me up if you need a hand reverting, any time. Scabbers the Rat 09:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Juninho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — their life-expectancy is down to below 10 minutes now :) dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note

...would it be OK to move Vishnu sahasranama to Vishnu Sahasranamam? I think the latter is correct in Sanskrit, but please confirm. It is used all over south India, where the sahasranamam is pervasive (it is but little used elsewhere), so that could be reason number 2. Do let me know. ImpuMozhi 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the last 'n' in "viṣnusahasranāman" is the Roman-script transliteration of the dot placed above the 'ma' in the Devanagari original, not the half-Na or half-Ma at the end of the word which cannot be confused for each other and have other meanings. This dot is read and written 'm' in many language groups. I don't know why it is transliterated using the 'n' in IAST, and from my superficial knowledge of the matter, it is more custom-n-usage than anything scientific: Ahinsa Vs Ahimsa. I have an idea that this is like the French bon and Portuguese bom -- both nasals and pronounced identically but written differently. Anyway, I came to you for advise, right, and I'm doing nothing on the matter. ImpuMozhi 15:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Holocene

The Holocene article states that it began sometome around 9560 and 9300 BC. This would be considered the 10th millenium BC. --Sean Brunnock 22:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. --Sean Brunnock 02:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Brahmanism

I've nominated Brahmanism for deletion as per WP:NPOV.--Babub 11:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland

Hi there, I see you have replaced some text in the Switzerland article which had asserted that a reason that the Nazi's did not invade Swizerland was the availability of Swiss banks for the Nazi regime, supported by a reference to the Bergier commission's report.

Do you have a more specific reference, in particular, which of the Bergier commission reports made the assertion, and on which page reference? I have been unable to verify the assertion, and I had asked about this on the talk page several months ago, and received no positive responses.

Enchanter 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling on Sikhism

Hi Dab - In your administrative capacity, I request your attention to this: [11]. You had warned user:ARYAN818 earlier, but it hasn't changed anything. This Fire Burns 15:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning to vandal

Hi, I've warned Anirudh777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the vandalism template since he continues to vandalize even after your two warnings. Also I've warned him for defaming me and spamming.--Babub | Talk 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Trouble in Mi’kmaq-land

I'd be grateful if you'd look in on the dispute at Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing and its talk page. Evertype 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

List of cognate terms in Vedic and Avestan mythology

I thought such a compilation at one place might be useful. I'm sure you know a lot in this area, so please contribute if you feel like. deeptrivia (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Historiography and Nationalism - Can you help?

Since you seem to be well aware of the role of nationalism in Indian historiography, I was wondering if you could find the time to help develop the article (or at least the bibliography section) on Historiography and nationalism. --SteveMcCluskey 02:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 18:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked twice recently

Hi

I wonder if there is a problem.I have been blocked twice recently for inexplicable reasons the last time by you for some mischief on the Rajput page which I had never visited.Please let me know if there was a problem as I appealed and was unblocked but still remain bewildered as I was on the previous occasion.I use the institutional computer and am not sure who else does.Maybe that could explain it but I would like this to stop and would appreciate your help.Thanks(Vr 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC))