User talk:Dbachmann/archive4

Finno-Ugric languages

AFU, you accuse me of hate and what not. I am not reversing your edits, but I explained why people who do are correct.

bachman, the reversing orgies are incorrect to the bones.

Have you read the article on cognate? Have you understood that a cognate is not the same as a translation? Then you understand that nobody thinks that ín means vein.

bachman, if ín is in the row where the corresponding English word is vein, then people think, that ín means vein. Understood?

We know, ok? It means sinew. We are talking about cognates. Linguists think that the words suoni and ín are related even though one means vein and the other sinew.

bachman, why should they think that? Those words have in meaning very little in common, and sound very differently. It is pure phantasy, that they are cognates.

Do you get it? no? pity, because I will not explain it again. dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You explained, that you do not understand, how a simple word table should be set up understandable, and also, that you think, words that are clearly unrelated in meaning and also in form, are cognates. This is very unlikely. However, all this is your problem, not mine. Antifinnugor 09:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

defamation

delete. but note that the duplication was a clumsy attempt at pagemoving, an not intended as spam. (i.e. the "Critic" one would have become a redirect). I originally supported the creation of a detailed article of FU criticism. In my understanding, an article should be deleted if the title has no promise of becoming a relevant article, while the content may of course be changed without deletion. However, in the weeks of discussion about the issue, no material worthy of more than a brief paragraph has come to light, and I do not think the article has any promise until more detail is accumulated in the Criticism section on Finno-Ugric. (so far, I have seen one peer-reviewed linguist "debunking" FU, and the peer-review I have seen about that work was utterly condemning. This one instance is still mentioned in the main article. This article could be about the political controversy in Hungary, but asking for such an article is asking for trouble. But I think Magyar nationalism would be the proper place to discuss these things. Talk:Finno-Ugric_languages#Finno-Ugric_as_a_political_issue,[3] (http://www.google.com/search?q=hungary+magyar+nationalism+finno-ugric) dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) Magyar nationalism? You mean Antimagyar defamation page? Antifinnugor 18:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bachman, you are an angaged hater and a defaming person.

yawn. dab (ᛏ)

he-he. Antifinnugor 21:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

could you maybe not break up my comments with your interspersals?

Well, this is the way, I can make remarks exactly to the ones, I want to answer. How would you answer your single thoughts? Antifinnugor 21:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And also, you may take me from your hitlist again.

let it be my private business. I can decide myself, whom I talk with and why.Antifinnugor 21:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I said is not my own theory, and I would never claim to be competent enough to decide about which FU words are cognate.

bachman, this is absolutely weak. I am really sorry for you. Why do you have your head on your shoulder, and in that your brain? To hate, to defame and to yawn? Antifinnugor 21:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was only, like you should be doing, pointing out the opinion of experts. dab

exactly that is what I am doing here, bachman. I am just a wiki editor, nothing more or less. Antifinnugor 21:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes Dab, RFC time :) Wyss 22:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Wyss. Dbenbenn 01:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Political compass

Your not alone, so many people have had so many opinions about my politics (most often that I'd be a far-right extremist) that I have taken the test dozens of times. I always get the same result. Slight left, slight authoritarian, one square off from the center on both accounts. I call myself radical middle, so unless your at one of the 4 corners, we can't be opposites, afaik. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 12:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe you. Funny, for your kind of extremism, I suppose a third dimensions would have to be introduced. Not that I know, though, and not that it would matter here. dab (ᛏ) 13:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It actually matters alot (the definitions generally, not necessarilly my own personal label) on political pages like Political compass and political spectrum, as well as those which reference them. The extra dimensional chart your thinking of would probably be something like friesian.com/quiz.htm (I had to break the link due to a spam filter, thats weird...). Its a bit technical for my taste, and so I havn't spent the time needed to be fluent in it yet, but I'm pretty sure it was what you were getting at. In case your interested (not assuming you are ;) my politics are outlined here. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 13:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nordic mythology, delayed

Hi, dab. I got so frustrated with not being able to respond to your question that I tried e-mailing you while the database was locked, maybe it'll reach you and maybe it won't, so I'll just paste in the message here as well. Sorry for boring you twice. Here it comes (that is, assuming with wild optimism that I'll be able to Save for once):

Hello, dab, I'm rather embarrassed to have spoken so strongly on WP:FAC, now that I'm coming round to the view that you were right about Norse mythology and I was wrong. I've been trying to message you about it without success today, since before you asked in WP:FAC, in fact, and now the database is completely locked (I don't really expect the e-mail feature to work, either, but why not give it a shot). Looking closely (I do need to start doing that before I vote on FAC!) in an attempt to copyedit the article and make it more structured, I see that there is certainly some obvious neo-pagan, uh, trying to be polite here, "stuff" will do, and probably some sneaky insertions too--I don't have much of a radar for these implications, I'm not into the subject. But, anyway, I have the impression that there's plenty of good scholarly material, too. Sometimes the seams between the good and the bad material are obvious, indeed, but some of them I probably miss. I feel very ignorant. I was trying earlier to post a message asking you to help, but I can see now (in a final, in itself a bit frustrating, twist of server hell) that you have already started to. I appreciate it. What I was going to say, specifically, was that I have a nasty feeling that the whole of "Germanic worship" may be nonsense--but I see, now, that you and Wiglaf between you have already practically annihilated it, good! Anyway, I'm sorry for the rashness.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 17:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you an hellenist?

I wanted to know if you can read greek (I'm learning). I suppose you do because of the etymological comments you posted in our loved Talk:Atheism page (not too much people know that there is something called TLG). Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 22:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bachman, please stop redirecting

bachman, please try stop your vandalismus, and do not redirect the finno-ugric criticism page, even if you are the most incorrect person in the vikipedia. thanks, Antifinnugor 20:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) vandalism again. Antifinnugor 16:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please do not redirect - it is vandalismus

Please read the uralic page discussion. Antifinnugor 17:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Improving your article

I do not want to censor any of this. Budenz and Marácz can go on the main article, if we can agree on a npov wording. typology and sample texts should go to the individual language articles. and there can be articles with specific swadesh lists, e.g. Swadesh list of Finnish and Hungarian. This should just be a list, and not make any claims about "untenability". dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please put link to the Marácz article into both articles. Please also put reference about Budenz to the pages, that is essential. Then the Swadesh list-Yes, please do that. There is Komi, Mordvin, Finnish, Estnish and Hungarian available in the Swadesh Table. You should set up a correct and full Swadesh list. At least all the words, that Komi contains, should be in the table, best alphabetic. You may use my list. This illustrates a lot. You do not need to write about untenability, leave that to the reader of wikipedia. Please also read the points on my user page- all those points need fix.Antifinnugor 16:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply

Hi dab, I replied on my talk page. What do you think? Dbenbenn 00:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Indo-European

The way the Indo-European box was on Thursday morning was seriously broken (in terms of formatting) for Internet Explorer on Mac OS X: some of the links were overlapping. That is, you couldn't see or click on "Tocharian", for instance, because it was actually behind "Religion" and some others. I'm at a different computer now, so I can't check this, but if all you did was revert my changes, I'd assume that the box is unusable in OS X IE again. I guess I don't know enough about Wikimedia syntax to fix the box in a way that won't damage it in other respects, but it was definitely broken when I found it on Thursday. AJD 17:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks like this. How can I fix it?

AJD 17:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AFU

Thanks for indicating the page, dab. When there is a RfC, I'll be there.--Wiglaf 16:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR violations

Please see WP:AN#Three revert rule violations. You should probably move your comment there. Noel (talk) 13:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: You said you left a note at WP:RFP, but I see nothing there? Noel (talk) 14:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. You left your note on WP:AN under the "Rachel Corrie" header, so I thought you meant your note was about that page. I'll go read WP:RFP again. Noel (talk) 17:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will start an entry in the "Incidents" section of WP:AN for this; looking at the history now. Noel (talk) 18:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've dealt with it (at least as much as I have the energy to :-). See WP:AN#Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups 3RR violation. I'll let others make the call on the redirect - I'd say leave it unprotected. Noel (talk) 19:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The second block is only for a third of the length of first one (which was 12 hours). Not really very major, I'm just trying to get through to everyone that they have to live with 3RR. If Antifinnugor keeps acting up, please let me know and I will do something more serious. Noel (talk) 21:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Dbenbenn/Antifinnugor draft

Hi dab, Please see User:Dbenbenn/Antifinnugor for a nearly-final draft. Make any changes you see fit. I'll move it to RfC in a few days. Dbenbenn 19:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

swastika

Apologies for the (brief) misattribution. It was late at night... Happy {holiday}! --Ant 09:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking

No worries, fair is fair :-). It was thoughtlessness from my side, as I thought the 24h period ended and began at 00 hours in the night like the Scandinavian concept of Dygn (24h period). Silly conceptual tangle.--Wiglaf 14:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think my second IP just was forgotten. Thanks :-).--Wiglaf 11:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Redirects

Note you cannot redirect to an anchor (section) of a page, redirects always go to the top of the page. --fvw* 17:57, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

you mean I should not? because, it seems to work. But I do not care, of course, if it redirects to the top of the article. It barely survived VfD, and nothing will ever link to it anyway (it was created as a way to rewrite the Finno-Ugric article from a different pov, which is why I am so adamant about redirecting it). dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nope, I mean technically don't. They'll work when you're at the redirect page and click the link, but if you just click here you'll be redirected to the top of the page. This is just a technical consequence of the way mediawiki, http and html work. --fvw* 18:05, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Sanskrit

"Sanskrit language" is the more correct term than just "Sanskrit".

Could you explain what do you mean? And are you aware that the naming conventions specifically mention Sanskrit as not supposed to have the "language" suffix? -- Naive cynic 13:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your support on my RFA request. It seems that had I waited one day with self-nominating, it would have succeeded. Jordi·✆ 09:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antifinnugor

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antifinnugor is live. Dbenbenn 19:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring the donations box; it's appreciated. Dan100 11:48, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, cheers - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb.donate 11:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Double thanks

Thanks for your kind re-posting of the donations box on the main page.

Your action has made a difference in the world.

Happy New Year!

— DV 19:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old Norse Names

I have reworked the names of the poems in Poetic Edda, formerly Elder Edda, to fit with the conventions tentatively established at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Old_Norse/Old_Icelandic/Old_English) and am informing those who have commented on such things. I noticed your remark "I laud any effort towards consistency (e.g. Saga names). Much could be improved!" at Talk:Norse saga. I hope this pleases you. I intend increasingly to go through with standardizing names as indicated, unless there really are objections. It is time the mess was cleaned up, following some convention or other. Please reply at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Old_Norse/Old_Icelandic/Old_English) if you have any feelings on the matter, especially if they are negative. Jallan 04:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uncertified RfC

Hi, dab, I went to move the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antifinnugor from uncertified to certified, but looking carefully, I realized that, in spite of all the documentation and certification, the second half of this instruction hasn't been formally complied with:

Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by discussing it with the subject on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. This must involve the same dispute or have observed [committee writing trouble there] the same disputed type(s) of activity, not different ones.

Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed.

So I had to leave it in the "still needs to meet the two person threshold" section. :-(--Bishonen | Talk 10:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, there is any amount of evidence of the reasoning and the patience, that's why I said "formally". I meant this bit: "Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document ... and sign".--Bishonen | Talk 11:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ah, new message: no, it's not the certifying/endorsing section at all, it's the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". See, I know it's misleading, the way "uncertified" on the general page does not refer to the "certifying" section on the individual page, but I do think that has to be it. The requirement is repeated in slightly different terms at the top the individual page, btw.--Bishonen | Talk 11:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right, everybody seems to be reading it that way. It's not what the rule says! But the rule is instruction creep at its worst, I'll just go move RFC#AFU right now. (And I already went edit the committee syntax a little, not that it's relevant to this. :-))--Bishonen | Talk 11:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse just one more, unrelated, point: the "Chan Han Xiang" and "Gtabary" RfCs (which is Chan Han Xiang's revenge RfC on his accuser) look like they could do with some input, there's not a lot so far, and Gtabary himself is on Wikation. I have no involvement, don't know the people, but it looked pretty open and shut to me (one of them reminds me of AFU). I'll stop pestering you right now.--Bishonen | Talk 11:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Language Template

Hi dab,

I've already explained why I think it should be scrapped many times on Template talk:Wikipedialang: because it is factually wrong. It is like equating English syllables with English words. Such sloppiness would have been, as I've said, torn to bits were it to be found anywhere else on Wikipedia.

If it's been translated into German, then all I can say is that there probably aren't too many participants on the German Wikipedia who know Chinese. Unfortunately I don't know German, so I can't do anything about what's done on the German Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 19:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the vote! I haven't been able to make up my mind, though: both possibilities appear to have serious advantages and disadvantages. - Mustafaa 08:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sura Template

That's a good idea... I was wondering why no one had made one... haha, I will try to convert some to use that someday but I leave for England for a month soon so I'm doubting it will be too soon. Good work though :) gren I have also just done this to Al-Fatiha so people can use it as a model.

Unprotection

Since protected pages are considered harmful, I thought it would be nice to start the new year off with a clean slate, especially considering that some of the pages have been protected for weeks. I'm sorry that my lighthearted expression of this was misunderstood. I realize not everybody has sworn off edit warring, but keeping pages protected for long periods of time is also less necessary now that the three revert rule can be enforced with blocks. Any admin can of course re-protect pages based on their own assessment if problems continue. --Michael Snow 00:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Voting

I am sorry Dab, but I can't make up my mind about that issue. I am also taking a long Wikipedia break now. Perhaps, we'll see each other on Wikipedia in the future. Warm regards, --Wiglaf 13:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

of course, I did not expect you to necessarily vote in my sense, and would have seriously reconsidered my approach with you dissenting. Goodbye, and good luck with your break, I am trying to tear myself free, too. dab (ᛏ) 13:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Impulsiveness

Hey, dab, I just wrote something on the RfC, I've probably managed to both ruin AF's conciliatory mood and offend you at the same time. I hope not the latter. I absolutely did not mean to imply that there's any way AF's insults to you can be so easily excused. I have no idea whether you guys are ready to regard what he proffers as an olive branch or not. Anyway, I won't interfere any more, the people who have wasted all that time and peace of mind on this should be the ones to decide, obviously. I know I'm impulsive, sorry.--Bishonen | Talk 21:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you've seen now how AF was still ranting against you only half an hour before his conciliatory post. I didn't see that bit before I posted either. (The page is a mess, AF posts all over it and we all follow suit.) I did figure that the aspect you mention, about sharing the turf, would make his proposal impossible to accept. I agree.--Bishonen | Talk 13:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Human-phylo-tree.png

What mean the digits 0,2% and 0,1% on the image?

Hungarians

oh dear, I think I had better not spend my holidays in Hungary, anytime soon

You would be surprised how wrong you are. :) Most Hungarians are nice towards clueless aliens.( And Afu's not even Hungarian I guess, so the above bases on misinformation.) :-)

I know you were kidding so don't worry! I just felt a comment on that is due. --grin ✎ 11:54, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Good luck for RFAr. We'll need it (both the luck and the Arbitration). --grin ✎ 12:54, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Let me know it there's anything I can do to help out, either with the RFAr or with mediation. It's a pretty unpleasant business all around, but it seems necessary. Dbenbenn 17:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Same here, I correct myself, let's go on the mediation, I trust that it could work too.

(I believe the only solution would be to ask Afu to collect the info on his userpage and let other people to use it to create articles. Tough.)

About Afu: I believe his stance is common among Hungarians living outside Hungary, I didn't really sensed such kind of hatred and stubbornness here around. I'd say he moved to Germany to earn more money (as many Hungarians do) and maybe he tries to justify his True Hungarianness by attacking everything he thinks is "Un-Hungarian", or attacks the (probably not that existant) Hunagrian National Pride&tm;... *sigh* --grin ✎ 11:11, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Congratulations. And you are shocked when Af calls you defamers. Gubbubu 09:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If we ignore AFU's behavior I think that there are two important points that haven't been emphasized enough, and I think AFU and his supporters don't understand well. It should be carefully explained that having two articles about the same topic but from different POVs is against the policy. (BTW, is this policy written down somewhere?)

The reason that AFU not accepting this can be that (unfortunately) creating a separate "Critique" page is exactly what happened in Hungarian Wikipedia, because otherwise AF couldn't be held at bay. I think the misunderstanding stems from the fact that he thinks that because people left the discussion there, it means that the article is OK now and the same content and page format can be translated into English. But this doesn't work, because there are editors here with a clue about linguistics who don't give him free reign as in hu:wp.

Another thing is that AFU doesn't have a linguistic background.

I think he has some, more than you or me. It is presumable. Gubbubu 09:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What can seem to be a carefully researched and referenced article to him (or to other laypeople), will be an unsalvagable POV rambling full of obvious mistakes to a linguist. I think someone should take the time and explain this to AFU. Point by point if necessary. I know that several of his points have been addressed before and its frustrating to do it again, but it's still better than edit wars and all the other stuff we have seen.

One more thing. I'm an expat, too, and I can still keep cool about my nationalism - most of the time. ;)

Nyenyec 18:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The List of Shame

Yes you speak wisely and in an unexpectedly good natured and friendly tone and I agree with much of what you say but I point out the following

• The Leftists here are often not festive, they can be very, very angry
• I thought about the List of Shame before compiling it, and decided I would not individually attribute the remarks in order to maximize good karma, except for one who disparaged my family
• The comments are utterly in context, the context being how angry the angry young leftist men can be. The List of Shame is designed to encourage Accountability.
• As for whether any of the comments on the List of Shame are justified, I will leave that for others to judge. Most of them were despicable personal attacks I thouht, but each to their own.
• It's meant very light-heartedly I assure you. I don't take myself that seriously I guess, otherwise I wouldn't have put it up.
• I will be changing it, pretty regularly to reflect the latest happenings. But I won't be changing the List of Shame concept, I think it's a force for good.

Libertas

Arbcom

This is the example I was talking about. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 23:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dab, let me know if you need help with that. Nyenyec 00:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Libertas RFC

Just thought I should let you know that I've opened an RFC to deal with Libertas's chronic personal attacks and other deliberately disruptive behavior. Your comments on his talk page concerning her "list of shame" are invoked as evidence of trying to resolve the dispute (after a dozen other direct attempts by other users). RadicalSubversiv E 04:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I added that item because I thought your comments to Libertas were helpful in giving a third party view of her claims of persecution. I didn't mean to imply that you had been involved in the situation in any depth, so if you feel it's inappropriate feel free to alter or remove it. I do have to take exception, though, to your description of the situation as "causing some unrest"; "wrecking havoc" might be a better description of her activities. RadicalSubversiv E 08:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

No matter how bad some people can be here, there's always people around to remind you that the wiki, the collective experience, is bigger than that. You are one of those people, and I appreciate it alot. :) --Che y Marijuana 08:27, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your signature

...lacks a </small> tag at the end. Is that by design?

Good luck with the RfAr, by the way. I myself think that mediation might work, but I tend to agree with you that I would cost much time — probably too much. — mark ✎ 16:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gubbubu

You know, dab, this character is getting very hard to believe. Nyenyec spoke of him as a respected contributor to the Hungarian wikipedia, and I'm sure there is a respected contributor to Hu wik by that username, but is this him? Think about it. Remember how Nyenyec asked "Gubbubu, is that really you?" Well, is it?

Well, I was that really. As I remember I excused Dab for this comment, but if I haven't, I do it know: 'Sorry for this'. Nyenyec asked me that cause in HuWP i'm know as a patient and polite person. But, naturally, when I fed up with something, or i feel wrongdoings or unjustisness, I can be impolite, as everyone. Dab's one or two comments I replied for wasn't nice, too. But this is not a problem yet, as I discussed it with him. Gubbubu 08:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The real Gubbubu is supposed to be a mathematician, i. e. a person who's into logic (compare the hilarity about me "reading" his Hungarian post before complaining about it), and an established Wikipedian (compare his incomprehension of concepts like diffs and links). He's supposed to be 25, he doesn't sound like that either. He sounds like an impostor to me. Maybe not a sock of AF's--Gubbubu's English seems even worse--or?

Ohh, really? Ooops. One of the causes I'm here for practicing English. May bee there will be a reachments sometimes at the future, I subpose. Gubbubu 08:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's something wrong. I won't believe this guy represents the cream of the Hungarian Wikipedia until I see it.--Bishonen | Talk 18:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind that I'm spying this talk page. As both of you defamers know, I'm working for the KGB). Actually it was Dhanak, another Huwik contributor, who asked 'Gubbubu, is that really you?'. The sudden change in style did strike me as well, but I tend to think that it is mainly a language problem. I know how frustrating it is to debate in a non native language if you're just not fluent enough — you clearly see your arguments and the points you want to adress, but then it costs so much time to actually produce some acceptable sentences...

Not only. That is so frustrating after talking with Nyenyec and Dhanak in Huwp a lot - so-so-so-so-so-so-so-so-so lot - they come here and continue the same argument, and it is frustrating to repeat the same arguments again and again, ad infinitum. I think Af and his edits needs special and patient attention, cause ha proved in Huwp a lot of things he says is true, but he is very sensitive, testy and short (i think by Myers-Briggs type-indicator he is an expressed intuitive and judging person, but I don't know, naturally), and often he can't draw his thoughts in NPOV form (but some of his thoughts are good despite this). And he like to attack dogmas what are especially conventional and widespread (so people don't understand him always). So Ny's, D's and especially Grin's joining to RFC I felt as a knife in my back. I think this were a bit arbitrary and impatient steps from them, I can't understand it completely. Gubbubu 08:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know why he suddenly takes sides with AF and starts threatening Hippo; I knew they shared some points of view, but we have all seen him condemning AF's behavior before. I don't know. Maybe he just needs to cool down. — mark ✎ 18:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do think it's Gubbubu, the mathematician. He still makes mathematical edits, too [1] (but, unfortunately, feels also the lure of linguistics [2]). I agree with mark that it can be very frustrating to try to make a point in a foreign language, while the 'natives' run interlocutory circles around you. You should then just have the decency to assume misunderstandings on your side, before being all over people for some imagined outrage. But this Hungarian story is really almost beyond belief, and afu's rfc has been turned into a complete madhouse. This is why I asked for arbitration, we must end this madness, somehow. But if the committee refuses to hear, I will consider my dispute-resolving duty done, and will just go back to spying on unsuspecting Hungarian editors, reverting their inspired edits concerning the prehistory of their people. dab (ᛏ) 18:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wait, a mathematical edit to HU doesn't indicate that en:Gubbubu is the same as hu:Gubbubu! If you want to really nail down the problem, just ask hu:Gubbubu to indicate on his hu:user page that he is en:Gubbubu. But given that he started here on EN on May 7, I don't think there's much doubt. Dbenbenn 21:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

for future reference: en-hu-en translation

About Gubbubu. He is the same person I've been writing about. He is simply put the #1 contributor to HuWiki, he's done a tremendous amount of work on mathematical articles. I've awarded him with what I hope to become our equivalent of a barnstar for it: [Extraordinary Editor Award (hu)|:hu:User:Nyenyec/Díj]. We agree to disagree on a lot of subjects, including politics, linguistics and judging Antifinnugor. I don't identify with his choice of words in debates, his unconditional support for Antifinnugor even in face of clear evidenece. I'm often surprised by how prone he is to loose his temper when it comes to politics (or what he thinks is politics) — remember that in Hungary linguistics = politics to some people.

Please quote where I've lost temper on politics. I loose temper on deleting, reverting, and - sorry for this word, but I don't know a more polite form - defaming. This is a big difference. Gubbubu 09:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the debate is not about censoring the linguistic objections to Finno-Ugric theory (i.e. the likes of Marcantonio), but presenting them in an NPOV, professional manner that does not hurt the trustworthyness of Wikipedia.

If you agree — and I think you do — than you have my full support. If you give in and give free reign to Antifinnugor that tells me that Antifinnugor's methods do work and the Wikipedia community can't do anything against them. To me that also means that the likes of him will take over not only in HuWiki (though his strong pro-nazi POV is making waves there too now), but also at least some topics in EnWiki. When I start believing this that'll be the point when I leave Wikipedia (en and hun) and advise all my friends no to trust it. :(

Please show me and several other editors following this debate that the Wikipedia policies and procedures do work. (At least in EnWiki.) I don't care if its consensus, negotiation, mediation, rfc, rfca as long as it results in quality articles and protecting the community from disruptive behavior. Nyenyec 21:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the problem is to handle a minority opinion. Gubbubu does not believe in FU theory which is still the majority opinion for many reasons, and it is often hard to advocate a minority opinion and stay calm. Even more hard when someone who believes the same theory [Afu] try to defend it without any professionalism and lacking sources and facts, and get ridiculed and denied; and you (as the believer of the same minority opinion) may feel that it wasn't the imporoper advocate who was ridiculed but your (common) opinion.

I am constantly surprised reading more extreme reactions from Gubbubu regarding the subject, but I am sure he is just taken away because of the negative feedback the "other" proponent gets, and try to defend it with more force than required (for a scientific and polite person, which he is). I am pretty sure that without Afu Gubbubu would phrase his opinion in more civil (and calm) manner. It is not easy to defend something in such an enviromnent full of hatred (what Afu have been creating). Actually Gubbubu could create good articles about it, but I believe he doesn't have the time either... --grin ✎ 21:23, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

I think there's truth in what Grin writes. However let me point out that AFU believes in Hunnic=Scythic=Turkic=Sumerian=Hungarian (with Parthian, Basque, etc. added in for flavor) while Gubbubu only supports the Turkic origin of Hungarian. (The theory of the most moderate objector's in Hungary who still have something to do with science.) The point connecting is the objection to Finno-Ugric theory. I'll write to him in HunWiki. Nyenyec 21:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree. We need (a) to show that bully methods will not avail on WP, and (b) that minority opinions still get a fair hearing, even if they happen to have bully proponents. Factual discussion of FU classification can be taken to the FU talk page, no problem. I am not sure if the 'Turkic' view is just the Uralo-Altaic theory (which is a minority view, I think, but unproblematic), or some sort of "Ugro-Altaic", which would be a bit more outlandish. It would be so much easier, if there would be references to peer-reviewed scientific journals. Also, I find it telling that, while I have no problem to believe there was censorship in Hungary during Soviet times, in the "West", there was never such censorship, and Western European/American science would have been all too happy to expose how Soviet science was ideology-driven. Uralic is still the (overwhelmingly) majority's view, even in the West, obviously not to do the Soviet Union a favour, but simply because linguists happen to find it most probable. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you all for the input above in response to my question. I acknowledge that hu:Gubbubu and en:Gubbubu must be the same person after all, and note the excuses made for him, and, uh, respect the claim that he's a scientific and polite person. Here's hoping we all meet this much charity where we have shown none.--Bishonen | Talk 09:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can see the evidences on my user page (w:en:User:Gubbubu), where I wrote clearly hu:User:Gubbubu is the same person as me, so, as Gottlob Frege says, the sentence 'A=B' is not the same as the trivial 'A=A'. Thanks your oppinion about me, it's so honourable, but in fact sometimes I can be impolite and unpatient, too. I try not to be. Gubbubu 08:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well, speaking of proofs, it would be more useful to have hu:User:Gubbubu say on his talk page that User:Gubbubu is identical with him. But I think nobody doubts you are identical, now. dab (ᛏ) 09:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stream of consciousness

(Dhanak, yes, sorry!) You've done so much already, dab, maybe it is time to step down and decide that nobody wins on the Internet, I don't know. I've never been involved in either mediation or an RfAr. The thing is, people get worn down. See how it's taken all these editors wasting these eons of time and energy already? According to Nyenyec, everybody on the Hungarian wiki just burnt out and left AF in possession, and he, N, is hoping the sheer numbers here will mean we have collective stamina. Up to a point, we do, but it still comes down to individuals in the end, here too.

I just don't know. The whole quasi-legal wiki process seems to be weighted in favor of problem users, and designed to wear down those who try to contain them. On the other hand, might it be possible to adapt Dbennbenn's original RfC, from just before it went live, into an evidence page, without it meaning days of weepwork and wikistress? And just adding a few choice diffs from the RfC itself, unless it's supposed to be assumed that the arbcom have already read and digested that (in which case they must be already very, very tired). The RfC was a nightmare, but an RfAr is at least in theory a simple thing, isn't it: you assemble the evidence, the other person assembles their case, there's no arguing, no Gubbubu, ...

No Gubbubu and what? What does it mean 'Gubbubu' in english? I don't know. Gubbubu 08:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

... just the ArbCom reading those sooo telling diffs. As for bad style, no, no, that's absurd! It's not like you haven't already tried to reason with the guy, from here to Christmas. The cows have come home. Nobody could expect you to mediate yet again with AF, after reading his charming "stream-of-consciousness rants" (good one! :-)) against you on the RfC. Even those arbitrators who do suggest mediation seem prepared to waive it if refused--I presume, if refused by either party.

Talk about stream-of-consciousness, sorry. But my upshot is, I think you would retain the moral high ground, as well as be doing us all a favor, by going on with the RfAr, even if you refuse mediation. I also think it's beyond the call of duty for you to do that, though. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Well, bearing in mind that I'm not a linguist and also that I can't really contemplate trying to master the sorry history of those scarred pages, so it's a bit of a nothing offer, but still, anything else.--Bishonen | Talk 19:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen. I think we do have the numbers, and the stamina, to deal with cases like this. This is not about afu. This is about showing that the system works. It is also about hu:, where I imagine editors would just despair if edit-warriors like afu could have their way even on en: where we have enforcements, arbitration, and countless editors to throw at problem-makers. So yes, please do help me with compiling the evidence page. Nyenyec also offered to help. Let's do it on this subpage. I'm copying the template there, but I have to leave now. I would appreciate if you could start with it, but I will finish it myself (after all, if the committee does hear, I'd have to compile it anyway). If we compile it and the arbitrators still refuse to hear, I'll just refuse mediation, regardless of whether that will reflect badly on me, and carry it through. warm regards, dab (ᛏ) 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi dab, I honor your commitment to Wikipedia, though I don't fully share it. I reckon it's just an encyclopedia, it doesn't deserve human sacrifice. Anyway, I'm sure you've seen that both Ambi and Sannse have changed their votes to "accept". Did you get my e-mail late last night? Just checking, I gather the wikipedia e-mail feature isn't very reliable.--Bishonen | Talk 13:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I only said in my e-mail that I've no idea how to make a "timestamp" (they expect a lot, don't they?) and that I've tried to put down the stuff I've been involved in. I honestly don't think it's a lot of help, though, I'm thinking my contribution may weaken rather than strengthen the overall impression. I'll go put it on the live page, if you think it's any use, but please feel free to remove or refactor, or merge so as to use the links in a more meaningful way, or whatever, when you get a chance to take stock of the page (don't kill yourself). I'll be watching it, so no need to worry about misrepresenting me. At a minimum, my stuff should remain way down the page, for reasons of chronology—not to confuse the arbcom unnecessarily—so if it stays on the page, I'll probably be going in and moving it down if people input other stuff below it.--Bishonen | Talk 22:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dab, I really will remove my evidence paragraph about the 3RR violation, if that's OK with you. It's such a little thing, especially considering that AFU was understandably frustrated at being team-reverted, and there are so many big things (which you present in an effective way, and there's presumably more coming from the Hungarians, too) that I think it disperses rather than strengthens the overall impression. OK?--Bishonen | Talk 01:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Express your opinion

Hi, I appreciate your efforts to resolve the conflict. Please vote at Talk:Israeli violence against Palestinian children#Article title (poll). Thank you. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)