User talk:Dbachmann/archiveC

Ok, origin is then probably a better term. The article is an improvement since things are added which weren't there before. Thanks, and regards, Raj2004 11:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dAb, just saw your msg about moving vs. copy+paste.. Yes, I missed that point earlier (was under the wrong impression that the old title gets deleted. Since the new name had IAST chars, I thought a user querying with simple English would never be able to search the article! *silly*). Will keep this with me now. By the way, your archives list (apperant following

Hi Dbachmann, do you happen to have a version of your image Greek_dialects.png with the areas coloured but without the overlayed texts? I would like to translate the legend into German and use it in the German Wikipedia. --BishkekRocks 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dab, thanks for your suggestion on the Constantinian shift article. There have been two responses to your proposed merger of 31 December 2005 over the last two weeks. I'd welcome any response you have. If you're happy to leave the articles seperate as I suggested, could you please remove the merge tag? If not, I look forward to further discussion.

Thanks, mennonot 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Grillot de Givry, Withcraft, Magic & Alchemy: "in Le Miracle de Theophile, by the thirteenth-century

--Seemed interesting, but you probably shouldn't vocalize that incantation yourself :) Alexander 007 13:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, you recently reverted my changes to the swastika article with this response: sorry, but this is wrong. the claim of the Swastika as "ancient heathen symbol" is idiosyncratic to Odinic Rite afaik.

1. Now, the placement of the article is up for debate. But I also made various other cosmetic changes and fixes to the article, which you also reverted without explaination in the same revert.
2. "AFAIK" is not justification for your reversion. I suggest you look do a google search for asatru and sunwheel or sun cross or even solar cross. You're going to find numerous Asatru and Heathenry articles about the subject, which are most definitely NOT restricted inside of the Odinic Rite.
3. You claimed I was simply wrong. I suggest you research this subject before you decide you know best.

I'm reverting the article back but leaving the placement as it is now. :bloodofox: 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out the fact that my changing of the article notes that various Heathen groups, not just the Odinic Rite, which the internet shows off pretty well. It's clear that the sunwheel was used throughout European history and various archaelogical digs have proven that it was used by the pre-Christian Germanic peoples. Thus, like any other ancestral Germanic symbol, it's appropriate by reconstructionist and Heathen groups. As I mentioned earlier, a simple Google search would have revealed to you random pages like these showing exactly that: [1], [2], [3], [4] and so forth and so on. There's a ton of these. Now, mind you, I'm not endorsing any of those sites. It's simply to illustrate the widespread recognition of the symbol by Heathen groups. In the mean time, feel free to stop reverting my article about the suject when I state exactly this. :bloodofox: 06:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dab, can you take a look at

I wonder what we owe the recent resurrection of Sisodia (talk · contribs) to? I didn't realize that was even possible -- any idea have that came about? ImpuMozhi 02:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German for "both" is beide, not bide, I've read other sources with the former spelling, and haven't heard of German evolving in a direction that would turn a 1400s bide into modern beide. So would you mind giving me a little more to chew on than mere trust? --Svartalf 15:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised too, but just compare these results with these. --

tɔk) 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course one of the vowel-related Lautverschiebungen (I tend to forget which one) turns long "i" into "ei". The more common German term today would be Beidhänder, though. —Nightstallion (?) 18:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not in beide, which comes from OHG beide (< PWGmc. *baiþ-, cf. OE bāþe), not *bīde. That's why it surprised me. --

tɔk) 20:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Mh. Are you sure that bīde in this case is not simply a variant of beide? On second thought: Is it possible that Bidenhänder comes from the Latin prefix bi-, and that -den- was added to form a connection to the German beide, which was and still is pronounced as bīde in some parts of Germany? Just a thought—don't know how likely it is, and your linguistics expertise greatly outclasses mine, anyway. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angr is quite right, it is surprising, etymologically. It's a case of chaque mot a son histoire I suppose.

dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

See also [5]: I think we may be looking at a contamination of *Beidenhänder and Bihänder (the Latin bi- prefix).

Seems my guess was correct then. Yay. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain in more detail the difference betwen

Letters of Saint Paul in the older Greek forms of his books in the New Testament would be helpful to you, Angr. His usage the context of that usage will be useful.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I was hoping is that someone who knew would add the relevant information to the articles in question! :) --

tɔk) 20:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops. I did not catch that. :) Ah well. I am not the gent for the job. I have secondary source knowledge on early Christianity and the writings of the original Apostles, but not on what you are getting at with your query. Sorry.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ogam/index.htm TITUS Ogamica

Is this really worth adding? Josh and his crew have not updated that section in a long time. Most of the links lead to dead pages. They should really be contacted about their plans for that project first, as evidence for a desire to update it is nil. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the link came in handy, see

dab (ᛏ) 23:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Anyway, you are correct in stating that their database seems to be the best online as yet. I have some hope for the CISP project, but they are progressing slowly. As for a page here entitled '

List of Ogham inscriptions', I would be glad to help. How complex of a list are you considering in your conception of the list? Simple text, or text with pics, or something more? Your comments suggest to me that you want to create something that will be around even if those other projects fail to be updated, but to my POV that sounds like a website in itself unless the KISS principle

is kept in mind.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw you deleted my addition 'A commentry' in this article. Can you let me know what is the proper way to publish that? I have the rights for that article.

This is Tanul | Wanna Talk 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this earlier today. I assume the topic is already better covered somewhere else. u p p l a n d 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your message on my talk page. :bloodofox: 09:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done about this specimen:155.232.250.35 (talk · contribs), 155.232.250.19 (talk · contribs) (and other IP's, mostly from South Africa). It is a troll, furthermore a vandal and a bore. Alexander 007 11:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! but I didn't know whether Wikipedia allows us to block those kind of shared IP's. I hope that we can. Alexander 007 11:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I can't. I wanted to draw your attention (and others' attention) to this problem. People have to start warning/banning these IP's. Not necessarily you performing the warnings/bans, but somebody. I can warn the IP myself, but an Admin doing it is better. I have a feeling that warnings would be useless however. The person behind those IP's is a troll, and has been at it on & off for weeks. Alexander 007 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

WP:ANI. I'll post him there as well sooner or later. Alexander 007 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The Cwen editor is our old Finnish chauvinist acquaintance editing under a few IPs and, lately, a series of different usernames: Carolina de la Gardie (talk · contribs), Martin Luther (talk · contribs), Swedish girl (talk · contribs), Variag (talk · contribs), Viking Investigator (talk · contribs), 213.216.199.2 (talk · contribs), 213.216.199.10 (talk · contribs). u p p l a n d 12:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, why don't you just block these people? Cases like this hardly need any discussion or reviewing.

dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree this person should be blocked & banned, as s/he obviously have no intention to improve Wikipedia, but considering the tolerance shown towards all the other trolls and POV pushers who are allowed to roam freely on Wikipedia, awaiting their reform to become good and productive editors, I can't see how it would be possible to just block somebody like this. This person hasn't engaged in any dialogue, but neither has s/he (as far as I know) made any personal attacks or started any frivolous RfCs against other users, like your Rajput nationalist trolls did. u p p l a n d 11:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have marked Great Army as a candidate for merger. I'm doubtful about this proposal; could you explain your reasoning at Talk:Great Army. thanks, Warofdreams talk 12:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I don't know how to suggest an article for deleation, and I don't want to change the article so drasticlly as to look like vandalism. But the ringmail article needs to go. I can accept chainmail for mail, but there is no historical or factual basis for ringmail. It was a victorian misconception based off of effagies and artwork. It needs to go. What can be done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ringmail

I wonder if it might be a bad idea to use reconstructed languages to illustrate the sounds of the IPA, as with proto-Semitic for [ɬ]. Reconstructed phonemes are only approximations, differ from one scholar to another, and aren't verifiable. If a segment requires an asterisk, it probably isn't reliable enough for an illustration. kwami 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean is was a bad idea to use the IPA to illuminate Proto-Semitic. That's useful, within limits. I meant that I thought it was a bad idea to then use Proto-Semitic to illustrate

voiceless alveolar lateral fricative. kwami 11:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't verify those two examples at the moment, but I've been trying to track down the Thracian example for months now. When/if I find it, you will know :) . Alexander 007 20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is

Mordovan. Alexander 007 12:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Following the official request at "Category:Religio Romana", I transfered all its articles and sub-categories to the better named "Category: Ancient Roman Religion". Could you delete (obliterate) completly Category:Religio Romana? Its completely empty and useless now, and I simply hate the fact that Wikipedia reaches such a high number of articles with empty and microscopic articles. Quality, not Quantity. Thanks, Flamarande 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a comment on this please? Thank you. Meursault2004 11:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perkwunos, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

A particularly good edit: [6] About time we stopped being so muddled about this. - Haukur 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, with emphatic nodding. ;)

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the line of division is Nordic / continental Germanic, I would say 'yes.'.

The continental Germanic perception and descriptions of the deities common to both northern and southern Germanic peoples should not be a barrier, for obvious reasons.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if you are willing to share with me, where you found the info that Phoenician Okhon is equivalent to Zalmoxis? I cannot find any reference to Okhon anywhere, no matter what I try to search under.

Thank you for any help you may be able to give me..

Dorothy

[email protected]

IAM is a theory - no one knows for absolutely sure that it happenned. But this is the only way we can explain the cognative relationships between languages - remember, in the Bronze age, the only thing that remained intact with nomads who supposedly traveled approx 3000 miles to settle in a new land were their language - everything else was lost or left behind. However, what most Indins have an aversion to is the implication that this was an invasion rather than a migration. The former has been used by several British historians to justify the conquest of India by western powers. Ofcourse, the migration was en masse, spread over several generatons/centuries - and the interation between the nomads and the natives was neither totally confrontational, not completely benign, but rather a mixture of the two.

Pizzadeliveryboy 19:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this:

The article could benefit from your attention. --Ghirla | talk 12:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you just now tagged

BTW, I've probably driven by your residence 1,000 times and didn't even know it. Do you have a Pestalozzi branch on the ground floor, or does it just seem like it? TGC55 03:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some pushers of pseudoscientific claims propose this as a new policy. There is a discussion on talk. --Ghirla | talk 11:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, why did you remove the newer image of the Tyr rune I created and replace it with the very poor looking (in my opinion), low-res and inaccurate font version that was there before? :bloodofox: 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about uploading it to commons, I should really do that before my uploads reach a certain point. I'll upload that image and some of my other stuff later, when I have some time to really look the commons over. :bloodofox: 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I've since uploaded the image in question to the commons and will be uploading further self made images to there as well. :bloodofox: 04:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A major revision of the article is under way. You are welcome to contribute to it or discuss the changes on talk. --Ghirla | talk 15:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on [7] I have proposed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Proposed_decision#Dbachmann_desyopped. Fred Bauder 19:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, that's utter bollocks. Lupo 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Dbachmann did not express contempt for Indian users of Wikipedia, only for Indian nationalist POV-pushers. I think that is clear both from what he wrote in that comment and from the larger context. Nationalist POV-pushers are a problem for Wikipedia, regardless of their nationality. u p p l a n d 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It was not an expression of ethnic contempt. Alexander 007 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal isn't on the workshop page so it's not clear where non-arbitrators can start a discussion about it, so I'm leaving this comment here. It's absurd. Dbachmann is one of our best admins and editors, and is completely even-handed in content disputes, paying attention only to how good the sources are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab is a very good administrator. I don't see how de-adminning him can solve this but I think we need to hear the reasons first. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, shouldn't you oppose that proposal, just out of principle? BTW, Dab, is there any way I can assist? (given my status as ordinary wikipedian and the fact I have zero influence) --Svartalf 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we should, and we would do over at the RfAr if we could. But as SlimVirgin has pointed out, Fred has not bothered to add this ridiculous proposed "remedy" on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Workshop: that makes it look like the ArbCom is not interested in receiving community input on that issue. I'll be away next week, if discussion takes place there, could some kind soul please provide a diff link over there to this comment of mine here: I do not think one can construe this comment as "an expression of ethnic contempt", it looks more like frustration over over the actions of incorrigible POV pushers. Especially not if one looks closer at what Dieter wrote on other occasions. Even if it were one (or even only if the arbitrators agreed on the proposed "finding of fact"), I fail to see how desysopping would be a "remedy". Adding this "proposed remedy" looks like a knee-jerk action of Fred's, but apparently and luckily some ArbCom members seem to remain more cool-headed. Lupo 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the ArbCom promises to read comments posted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rajput, I have left them a short note there. Lupo 10:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depressingly unsurprising behaviour, but no less reprehensible for that. If there's anything that I can do to help, let me know. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to bring you in on this, but a persistant user has been making a mess of the Kven and even more of talk:Kven. You are known as an anti-POV guy, and I hope you'd have some interest in this subject. Regards Fred-Chess 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I will not continue to be known as an anti-pov guy as long as the arbcom considers de-adminning me for it (see above), sorry.

dab (ᛏ) 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Dab, don't let this get to you. It's just Fred Bauder throwing his supposed weight around. Lupo 08:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it bullshit? --Ghirla | talk 11:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that those stones grow in the desert so I hand selected one for you, to show my appreciation for your NPOV efforts and the improvement of various articles (about history, linguistics and more). Take care. talk to +MATIA 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help resolve the dispute in the article Arvanites. The disputed (locked) version is of a ridiculously POV and completely unsourced content. I don't understand why the page was locked in such a version in the first place. I've already messaged the admin who locked it (User:MarkSweep), but I don't think he cares a lot. Miskin 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if this article would be a good idea. It can cover history from Indus Valley through Vedic and Classical Sanskrit,

Darn! I was hoping to get a new scholarly contributor :) - Haukur 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ignore me now. Miskin 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

section moved to Talk:Arvanites

talk to +MATIA 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dab, I make proposal version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvanites/test can you check? Zogu

Please check the new articles:

Thanks for your time. --Ghirla | talk 09:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought you might be interested in

Hi,DaB, I am Rau Eugen from Romania, [email protected] Probably neolithic migration from Asia and worse:from SE-Asia is a mistake.As long as I know there were 2 major migrations in paleolithic:1.In Aurignacian to Iberia from Asia.This is the only wich can be related to SE-Asia.My personal searches are pointing not to Asia in general but more precise to SE-Asia.2.In grawettian was a migration from Near-East to Ukraine and Balcans areas.All migrations in Neolithic are related only to :Near-East,Levant through Anatolia and by sea through Greece.There were also the later kurgan migrations,presumed from Ukraine steppes and regions north and/or north-east.

You were maybe mistaken,with the presence of SE-Asia genes wich are present in the European pool-gene in a measure,but they are there only from paleolithic times.Please show me the source of your data,because I am making some research,and this point is very important. yours,Eugenrau

I am afraid I have no idea what you are talking about, please specify an article, or ideally a diff of an edit of mine.

dab (ᛏ) 20:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

New article, needs attention. --Ghirla | talk 19:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anon is injecting "Proto-Ionian" theory into this page. I reverted once, he insists. I prefer that someone else revert the second time -- can you take a look? The anon, by the way, acts a lot like banned user User:Irismeister. The Proto-Ionian stuff has made it into several of the other editions (Romanian, etc.) of WP.... --Macrakis 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I have put up all my pages on speedy delete, some are deleted already, in regards to your comments on copyvio at Talk:List of Rune Inscriptions in Greenland. The pages either deleted, or put up for deletion includes List of Rune Inscriptions in Östergötland and all its Part pages(total of 5 pages), the List of Rune Inscriptions in Greenland and the List of Rune Inscriptions in Uppland (total of 10 pages). With this done however, I wonder if I need to go ahead and delete all of the

A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The decision has been reached and I would like to thank you for your efforts in what was a difficult dispute dab. I never contacted you before because the bigotted Hindutva side always claimed we were working against them and hence took a dignified silence (once in a while away) but I'm personally very glad and appreciative that a white admin took part in something almost alien to him, took abuse but tried to remain focussed on the issue at hand which they kept trying to delude. You took a lot, no doubt but you and Zora stuck with it and I am sorry you had to take so much to promote a basic ideal, neutrality.

Please, please please keep up your good work and I as always will remember you in all our prayers friend. - --Raja 06:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dab. I am more than willing to accept a healthy debate on the subject, but to be honest echoing what you said, it got heated and tempers slipped etc. It's sad when you try and see things from the other side but all you get is abuse back masked under the cover of 'vocational skills'.... But I am glad it is resolved. I actually have a more liberal view of it, I dont see being a Rajput as anything more than lineal as it doesn't endow one with any form of superiority (hence the countering against the claim of superior 'caste' which dont recognise as a Muslim) but for others to totally write us out of the picture because of their prejudices isn't qualified in my opinion.

Please do continue to make contributions to the development of this page, to be honest, you, Khurram and Zora were the driving force to this result today.--Raja 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dab, time is come for a Barnstar! This is not for fortitude in recent travails; those events only served to bring your great contributions-record into focus, and I am vastly impressed. It is important that people like you persevere in WP, despite whatever hiccups (wars, bad friends, proposals of de-admining) the experience offers. This barnstar is the very first I am giving out -- do consider retaining it on your userpage. Best regards, ImpuMozhi 20:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the confidence dab, and yes, I do have a lot of plans for the whole bunch of articles, incl transfers and page-deletions. But I will be away this coming week -- hopefully, by the time I get back, recent activity from the other side would also have subsided. I do hope for your approval and support in whatever I do there. Regards, ImpuMozhi 19:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One reference I can recommend now is Ralph F. Hoddinott, The Thracians 1981 (forgot the publisher, google will turn it up). The book is not stimulating from the linguistic perspective which it barely touches on in the last chapter, but it is an extremely referenced work which focuses on archaeology. The Bulgarian researchers I refered to include some who worked on the Valley of the Thracians Kings stuff and some other guys; the Romanians include Sorin Olteanu and some other figures. Ivan Duridanov is available online, and he discusses the abandonment of the Thracian-Iranian theory, and the current Thracologists I've referenced don't support that theory either. Thraco-Balto-Slavic is popular nowadays. Alexander 007 15:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When arbcom was against you they were "out of depth" and now you are all ga-ga over there behavior (this w.r.t to your comment on raja's page). You really have no scruples do you? Also some arbcom members have informed me that arbcom DID NOT vote on the content of the rajput page but just the behavior of editors. So keep that in mind. Shivraj Singh 01:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what can I say? Yes I am satisfied with the decision. No, I don't automatically endorse every arbcom decision. Yes I did have an opinion on the case (come on, I filed it in the first place), and the arbcom pretty much endorsed every opinion I had. They even incorporated my take on "related articles" and editor affiliation ("Hindus only editors") in their decision. This arbcom decision is pretty much what I would have done back in December if I had the power to ban editors. Yes it was about editor behaviour. Yes, I intervened because your and DPS's behaviour was unacceptable, and by banning you, the arbcom has decided to confirm that opinion. And yes, they did make a content related statement: They reminded everybody that the Rajputs are first and foremost a Hindu caste. I am aware of this and I have no intention of disputing it. And no, I did not think David Gerard's suggestion to de-admin me was appropriate (If I did, I could ask for de-adminning myself, anytime), and I am little surprised it was turned down. It was not a great idea, but it was on the workshop page, where arbcom members may brainstorm. I don't know what he needed to alert me to that idea of his for while it was under discussion, but he was of course free to make the suggestion. So in short, I have an opinion, and the arbcom ended up sharing that opinion. I fail to see what is unscrupulous about that.

dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I know that crossbow is in Category:Archery. But read the intro/definition at Archery: that seems to be a mistake, too. Lupo 12:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inserting the numerical transcription; a very useful job which was badly needed. I don't remember actually reverting, as opposed to rewriting much the same text; if I did so, or even caused edit conflict, I apologize. Septentrionalis 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dbachmann,

I'm a little confused with your glyph-list. As fas as I know Fischer has compared only with Linear B signs and not as you wrote with Linear A signs. Additionally Fischer sees other similarities: 19 Y-shaped branch he compares with da ⊦, 36 bush he compares with the ru sign. Sign 26 and not sign 45 is compared by him with ra2, etc. Maybe you should name Nahm, Werner. "Vergleich von Zeichen des Diskos von Phaistos mit Linear A". Kadmos (Vol. 14, No. 2. (1975)): 97–101. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help) instead of Fischer as reference for comparing with Linear A.

On the other hand some of the descriptions sound like Faucounau: "drinking vase, made from a shell", "bridle", "yoke". I hope this names will not get part of permanent edit wars because everyone has another interpreation.

Last but not least you have added a second reference for Timm. To prevent undue-weight, maybe the first reference for Timm should be deletet. Kadmos 23:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To give Evan's interpretations seems to be a good idea. Coincidentally I have a copy of this list. So if I should post that list here say it. Kadmos 07:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Evan's interpretation. See User:Kadmos/sandbox#Glyphs. Feel free to edit. Kadmos 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've noticed the problem user at

Semiprotection is intended for vandalism, not for a content dispute, which is what this is. As for 3RR, isn't it better to try to see eye to eye? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, guess I stepped into a shitstorm. Well, I've been there; frustrating. Anyway, if you have a consensus at least a protection will provide a bright line for 3RR's once it's lifted. I'll keep an eye on it. Good luck ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text of proto-Ionian theory (as deleted) is at User:Pmanderson/proto-Ionian theory. While clearly edited by sceptics, this may still supply a useful sentence for the relevant article. Let me know. Septentrionalis 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]