Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann

message: Stop being hypocrate Dab. It was you who created this article and termed it as a `theory'. It was you who then introduced this term in articles of AIT,IAM,OIT etc. So, stop being total hypocrate.
Dab created a separate article for "Dravidian substratum in Sanskrit ". The contents of it were first written in sub-section 2.2 Substate Influence in Indo-Aryan Migration.Because the sub-section 2.2 in IAM article was containing some severe critics by other Western linguistics as a zeal to find Dravidian words in Rig-Veda. So, Dab made this Dravidian substratum in Sanskrit as new article and sent all the harsh critic words in that new aricle with a link given from main IAM page. Then, after a month or two , he deleted that Dravidian substratum in Sanskrit and re-directed the link to Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit and then deleted harsh critics by other Western linguists. When I noticed it on 1st March, I copied those harsh critics again in that article. 
I had opposed  creation of separate article Dravidian substratum in Sanskrit but Dab opposed it saying that IAM article size is big and hence it's trasfered to a separately created article, though he would keep IAM supporting points as it suits him. Dab might be good in other subjects  but in this controversial subject he is known to behave like a dictator and uncivilized,though he always accuses opposers as POV pusher or pseudoists.  His behaviour is like Witzel's who himself writes in Indian Communists' mouthpiece magazine `Frontline', but accuse others as politically aligned !
Hindus were & are opposing Western imposing of AIT during British Raj. They had always opposed the AIT imposition during British Raj and wrong interpretations of Rig-Vedic verses to find AIT in Rig-Veda ( which is now acknoledged as true ). But their views were never obviously considered. And, instead they are labelled as Hindu fundamentalists !!! Max Muller's conversion & colonial motives are clear from his own letters. So, it's Dab who is being hypocrate in this matter by not allowing this point in related article and denigrating opposers !   WIN 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

message: My feelings to this editor are very mixed. I had some very good editing experiences on a couple of articles with him, where we both worked hard to write an article that represents diverging pov's, and I have seen that he can also be fair to the opposing pov (unfortunately not always). This proves that he is capable to constructively work with people who don't share his pov. 
On the other hand, this editor does often have problems in getting the right attitude to work with others, and does sometimes not respect policies like NPOV, BLP and Civility enough. On the Indo-Aryan migration topic, I feel that his time would be better invested to write the linguistic part of the articles, instead of politicizing the issue in all impossible places. (Unfortunately the same thing is often done by some people in the real world, be they Rajaram or Witzel). 
I can give only give some suggestions to him: He should always explain it on the talkpage if he deletes any referenced material (unless it's very clear vandalism or nonsense), or in the edit summary if it's unreferenced. He should stop unnecessarily commenting on the religious or political character of his fellow-editors. (stop labeling some of them as Hindutva trolls, for example) He should be more aware of NPOV, understand that his sources represent a particular POV, try to use sources from multiple pov's and give respect to multiple positions on a topic. --Rayfield 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside comment