User talk:DBaba/Archive 2

To Huu

I agree with you somewhat. But most of the edits seemed, to me, not as good as the earlier wording. I'm referring primarily to the flow of the text. Badagnani (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yo

I posted your message to me on the Islamism discussion page

[1]

As you will read I'm willing to go along with you on deleting the merger tag, but not on deleting the "This article is about political Islam, For the religion of Islam, see Islam," line at the top. And hello to Leshan Giant Buddha! --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 25 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jackals and Arabs, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Friedrich Kellner

You are more than welcome. I appreciate that you took the time to view the video. Hopefully you can share it with your friends, so that the good guys will outnumber the neo-Nazis who are also looking at the video. And let us hope that the Taliban do not destroy that fantastic Buddha on your page here. Scott Rskellner (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Kafka

Thanks for your note. I reverted another of your changes as well, about his health problems. I explained why. If they're true, I think they should definitely be kept in because fascinating. The other change I reverted, which you said you made because the line was redundant, I didn't think it was really redundant because without it, one gets the impression he had no interest is Judaism in particular, not religion in general.

All best, (Linda Smart (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

It Takes a Village

I notcied that you edited the page for It Takes A Village.

The current issue of The New Yorker magazine has an article about Hillary Clinton and it discusses the controversy relating to Barbara Feinman and the ghostwriting of this book. The article seems to say that the publishers, Ms. Clinton's aides and Ms Clinton herself were not happy with what Ms. Feinman's had produced; that the publishers considered withholding the final payment to Ms. Fienman; and that Ms Clinton and her editors did a major reworking of the materical before publication. In otherwords, it casts this controversy in a light more favaorable to Ms. Clinton (but in not 100% favorable way).

I hesitate to add any of the TNY information to the article for several reasons:

1. you worked on this very section this week and might not be done with what you wish to do.

2. I am new at this and I am not familiar with the wiki tags it would take to give proper attribution

3. TNY magazine is noted for its factchecking but has a very obvious liberal bent and sometimes gets carried away with how it presents information. I am not sure how present this new information, esp in light of NPOV

4. Since Ms. Clinton is a person of great interest, I have no desire to start or become involved in an editing war.

5. Although wikiperians are encouraged to be bold, I am too timid to take this on alone.

Would you have any interest in reviewing something before I put it into the article? For that matter, am I acting appropriately in even bringing this up?

Thank you for your input.--Phillicia Cattertails (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Must be doing something right

Insults from that kind are a badge of honor. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hola

Nice to see you editing. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your good humoured usepage. Plus, people who add references deserve barnstars. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama GA

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Michelle Obama. You may want to put this on your user page:

This user helped promote Michelle Obama to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious terrorism

Hi, you added the following text to Christian terrorism

“ Christian terrorism is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Christianity. This form of terrorism is an outgrowth of political conviction, which the perpetrator believes to be a religious duty, owing to her or his interpretation of the Christian faith. ”

This definition has no citation, and directly conflicts with Mark Juergensmeyer's definition of religious terrorism. In particular, he does not say that it's only terrorism motivated by "religious duty" that is religious terrorism, but any kind of terrorism that is carried out and backed by people with a world view that divides populations into groups based on religious differences. Could you either provide a citation for your definition, or fix it so that it doesn't conflict with Juergensmeyer's definition? Thanks. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally removed the stuff in the lead that was generic to all religious terrorism and not Christian terrorism, however, it was reverted by a Christian editor who wanted to include some generic "defensive" text in the lead. The stuff from Hoffman was added by the same editor who argued that almost every group in the article should be removed because Hoffman's definition is quite strict (i.e. there must be "clerics in a leadership role"). Hence the addition of Juergensmeyer's definition. And then another editor added the same text to Islamic terrorism in the interests of neutrality. So you are technically right about it not belonging, but that's how it came to be there. I would be happy to see it removed. In the interests of neutrality, I would prefer the lead text to be as similar as possible between the Christian and Islamic terrorism articles; some text that says that the majority of people who follow the world's major religions are not terrorists, and that those who are terrorists are a small minority, would be best. I do not think that Bernard Lewis alone is a strong enough reference for such a controversial statement in the lead, but it is passable given that the counter statement immediately follows, though you do need to attribute the countering statement; "by those who contend that" - who are "those"? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Haile Selassie I and Rastafari movement

Good luck in improving these articles. There are some zealots out there who will resist every edit. Bulbous (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Saartjie Baartman

Please see Talk:Saartjie Baartman; you may wish to contribute re use of freak show. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:DontGiveUpTheShip.jpg

I have re-uploaded a largeer copy of the above image and nominated it for Featured image as I thought it had a shot, just for your information. SGGH ^speak! 12:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry for not explaining my revert. If you look at it again, I hope you will notice how the specific edit I reverted violates the NPOV policy, by asserting that one disputed POV is correct and the other is not. This is still a disputed POV, so your wording just seemed to tip the delicate balance. I am open to any wording that preserves netrality on the issue of Romanework and does not "side with" one referenced POV or another regarding her maternity. Thank you for your understanding. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you can disregard the above... It was my carelessness in looking at the diff hastily, for some reason it looked like a different sentence had been removed than the one that was removed. Your edit is fine with me and I have reverted myself! Sorry again, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have been adding references to HIM Autobiography, Vol II. Congrats on finding copy of this important book. I do not have access to this book at the moment, but I am very curious to learn what exactly it says on p. 170 regarding Romanework's mother allegedly dying in childbirth. Are these His Majesty's Words, or were they perhaps in an editorial footnote? If you would be so kind as to reproduce the exact relevant quote from p. 170 for me, I would be very grateful since this her maternity is a mystery I have been trying to solve myself for years, and I had not heard about the dying in childbirth. Feel free to use my talkpage. Much obliged, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

re: SA & Goethe

Hi,

Thanks for the very interesting message. Amusingly enough, I have actually been attacked by an anonymous commentor by merely associating Goethe with mysticism. [2] I responded by asking for evidence from Goethe's writings, and shockingly, the respondant had one at the ready. [3] That particular exchange made me realize that perhaps my mystically-oriented reading of Goethe was partial and that there is also a strong secular or skeptical or (better) dialectical side to Goethe. After all, Goethe did inspire Nietzsche and Freud as well as Schopenhauer, Steiner, and Buber. In fact, I have just ordered a book which will perhaps remedy some of my deficiencies in this area.

I hadn't considered the parallels you mention between Aurobindo and Goethe. Aurobindo (as you may know) was very well read in Western literature, especially the English Romantic poets, and was undoubtedly familiar with Goethe. In fact, the (somewhat mythically-oriented) biographies of SA always note that he worked on the epic poem Savitri his entire life, only finishing it right before his death. Remind you of anyone?

I would have to agree with you that a link to Spinoza is not obvious. I link to Plotinus on the other hand...

One of the neatest things that I have read by Aurobindo, which really made me aware that he comes out of the Western tradition, is his "Thoughts and Aphorisms", which is really reminiscient of Goethe, Schopenhauer, Emerson, and Nietzsche. Like this:

29. One called Napoleon a tyrant and imperial cut-throat; but I saw God armed striding through Europe.

— goethean ॐ 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I may know what the connection between Spinoza and Romanticism is that your person is referring to. Schelling's philosophy (esp. from the years around 1800), which Goethe read and benefitted from, and which is considered the foundation of "Romanticism" (variously defined), was strongly influenced by Spinoza's conception of Nature.

I tend to think of Faust as embodying Romantic striving and of the repartee between Faust and Mephisto as representing the dialectic between Romanticism and Enlightenment. I am indebted to Walter Kaufmann's interpretation.

If you want to know more about Aurobindo, check out M. Alan Kazlev's website. — goethean ॐ 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

=USS Liberty Incident

You are in violation of the three revert rule. The comments in the discussion board will stay and may/may not be added into the article. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you will be reported 64.126.23.130 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(For passing editors) Disregard this ip's comment. Extensive trolling - defined by course, inane vitriol. DBaba, I'd like to express my appreciation for your decision to comment at the ip's talk page, and to do so with calmness, clarity, and coherency. Who know's whether this particular group of ips sincerely subscribe to that dogma. They're disruptive trolls that have as much a concept of what they're saying as I do of binary code ;-). Regards, SoLando (Talk) 07:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi there. Can you please ensure you upload all free images to Wikimedia Commons in future, such as Image:JerichoButtons.jpg. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your editions to the Guru Granth Sahib articles

		The Original Barnstar
		Thankyou for your additions to the Guru Granth Sahib article, the intelligent excellent explanation of eastern Philosophy, Dharmic Laws and the obvious respect for the Guru Granth Sahib you showed in writing - I award you a barnstar. Thankyou for your hard work -keep it up we need your help on the article.--Sikh historian (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Do you think we can now remove the in-universal style template from the article?[4] Shalimer (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Message

This might be useful

• According to khushwant singh, his head was not completely severed, but his neck muscle got damaged bad, and his head reclined/rolled to one side. He supported his head with one hand and weilded his sword with other.
• According to orthodox view, his head got cut off and he placed it in his hand and led the army on front.

By the way thanks once again for guru granth sahib article. Great work :-) cheersShalimer (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! you really are a gem :-) Shalimer (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gabe Kapler

I undid the edit because the article from ESPN clearly called him the Hebrew Hammer. He has also proven to be a very powerful hitter in the early part of this season hitting 4 HRs in 26 at bats. He also has 2 doubles along with 5 other hits in 26 at bats for a .423 avg. He has one of the highest slugging %'s in the league for the young 2008 season. For a guy who was "retired" and managing in the minor leagues, I would say this is pretty impressive. If you find the term offensive I will not put it back but I think he is a "Hammer" regardless of his religious beliefs.

I dont really know how this talk thing works but I think im doing it right. Let me know what you think I'll leave his article as is for now.

After looking up a shirtless picture of Kapler, it is obvious he is a Hammer. http://ciepley.com/images/blog/icon_kapler_lg.jpg

Godspeed, Snarlinmonsta (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		for Baba Deep Singh, ofcourse Shalimer (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on Baba Deep Singh. Even i couldnt do it better, lol. By the way, where did you get info on his descendants. Even i did not know about that.Wow. But is it really true? Sikhs don't give any importance to any descedants of earlier Sikhs, not even those of gurus!!Shalimer (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks..

..for the barnstar. nice work on Guru Granth SahibShalimer (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Matthew C. Perry

Your edits did improve the flow of prose in this article; but factually, we can't know that the Commodore consulted all available resources. However, Sewell's account does verify that his pre-expedition research was extensive. Also, although the record is very clear that Perry consulted Siebold, we know from other sources the German Japanologist had returned to Europe by the 1850s. This portion of your edit was on the right track, of course. Although I've reverted this one part of your recent edits to this article, there is no question that you were correct to notice that the wording does need some work. --Tenmei (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pipes

We usually don't protect pages due to sporadic vandalism. This person (I think it's just one since the IPs all come from the same area) seems to pop in every few days. At that rate it's still practical to just stay attentive and fix problems as they happen. If it intensifies then protection would be more warranted. I'll watchlist the article. If there's a repeat in the next day I'll semi-protect it for a while. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Azeri etc...

Nice try DBaba but….. You “wrote” or copy from old versions of this page “The SS-Waffengruppe Aserbaidschan was a Waffen-SS formation composed of Azerbaijanis. These Azerbaijani troops were originally Soviet prisoners of war who opted to serve, under threat of starvation, in Wermacht units like the Azerbaijani Legion until they were transferred into the Waffen-SS. The unit participated in the infamous Wola massacre, in 1944.” The Waffengruppe Aserbeidschan was created 30.12.1944 (SS-FHA, Amt II OrgAbt Ia/II, TgbNr. 5248/44 gKdos vom 30.12.1944), and was a part of the Kaukasischen Waffen-Verbandes der SS along with Stab Waffen-Gruppe Georgien, Stab Waffen-Gruppe Armenien and Stab Waffen-Gruppe Nordkaukasus .This unit did not participate to the Wola killings that happened from August 5 to August 8 1944 five months before.

Second Azeri SS regiments wore a blue-red-blue sleeve ensigns with a crescent and a five-pointed star and the inscription "ASERBAIDSCHAN" over the ensign while Azeri soldiers of the so-called Ostlegionen had a chlorine edging on collar and sleeve, surrounding the emblem. This sleeve has never been worn by Azeri SS the one you are talking about is the second version of the sleeve worn by the Azeri Legions from the Whermacht .SS wore variations of SS insignia on uniform to indicate non-German status.They used the white stripes/red field system standardized by the Whermacht 06/42 for "Osttruppen" volunteers and "may" have used SS rank collar tabs with blank ,black runes patch. For propaganda purposes Germans illustrated many more rank tab systems and arm shields than actually existed in the field

About War crimes in Poland Wola massacres happened started the five of august 1944 not in July Kaminsky was not in Wola but in Ochota ,another part of town.

Kaminsky was a Pole not a Caucasian and they were NO Azeris under his command

“Hans Thieme an intelligence lieutenant of the 203rd Division” The 203. Infanterie-Division was set up in October 1944 three month after the Warsaw uprising. But it could be the 203 Security Division unfortunately this division was not in Poland at this time

I invite you to read the Talk page of the Azeri Waffen SS Volunteer Formations all this has already been discussed

Enjoy Zulfugar (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)