User talk:Trigaranus

Welcome!

Hello, Trigaranus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Tankred 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm.. i am still not sure i agree with everything you say. for one, you(and dab) seem to be a little swayed by stereotypes that are generally way off the mark. for example, the demonstrations against hindi were not as spurious as you seem to think it was. nor was it limited to tamils and tamil nadu. they were perhaps most vocal and animated(given their 'history' and the history of their politics) but the fact of the matter is that it was rejected unanimously by several(perhaps all) non-hindi states(not just south indian).

any which way you see it, the attempt to make hindi the off/nat lang was not just the innocent run-of-the-mill administrative decision that you make it out to be. It was peppered with as much (if not more) linguistic zealotry from the for-Hindi camp as you accuse the 'against'-Hindi camp of. For starters, believe it or not, hindi was a foreign language to the 60%+ of the country in those days. whatever hindi people in the non-hindi speaking areas speak/understand today is primarily thanks to bollywood. 50-60 years ago, though, it was totally different. the generation of my grandparents and even my parents for example would truly and seriously have been handicapped if they'd been expected to use hindi everyday or to write exams(for govt., jobs) in hindi etc.,. believe me, the average south indian (my grandparents and parents, for example) atleast (I'd imagine it would true of several other parts of the country too) of that day and age spoke no more hindi than they spoke, say, Persian or Swahili.

Education in english (especially at the college level) had taken firm root and almost everyone who was 'eligible' to work knew english and was comfortable with it (atleast in south india). And to understand the fully gravity of the situation, you should be familiar with the importance and prestige that used to be accorded in India to "government" jobs. If you got a "govt., job", you'd literally reached the pinnacle of glory in your life. Fathers fell over each other to give their daughters in marriage to you :D In short, if you landed a 'govt., job' your life was made. It is still the case in parts of India. That being the case, it certainly was no 'master stroke' on the govt's part to thrust hindi(proficiency in Hindi) on such a large population. imo, it was an extraordinarily ill-advised and short sighted attempt on the govt's part and no wonder it ended up the way it did. even today, not as many as you think are 'proficient' in hindi. it is one thing to hum a popular song or for girls to drool over shah rukh khan, but if you asked the same people to give exams in Hindi and carry out everyday transactions in hindi, pen official correspondences in Hindi etc., I'm sure half the population would still be seriously handicapped. English, on the other hand, is seen as a reasonable middle way because it is only as 'foreign'(or as 'native') to Karnataka as it is to Bihar.

also, i must say that your understanding of 'minorities' and 'majorities' vis a vis the linguistic groups is also off the mark. for one, 'dravidas' afaik do not think of themselves as lingusitic 'minorities'. I mean.. statistically they might be.. but they dont really think on those lines. this may partly also be due to the fact that the four 'Dravida' states happen to be four of the most economically progressive states in the country. also, irrespective of how linguists classify Indian languages, every linguistic ethnicity in india has a sense of their own unique identity. there is no special brotherhood between, say Kannadigas and Tamils ('dravidas' both) that you cant find between, say Kannadigas/Tamils and Marathis or Sindhis('IA' both). Yes, there may be a sense of camaraderie(between Kannadigas and Tamils) that is borne out of geographic and demographic proximity/familiarity but it has nothing to with how linguists classify the different languages.

For the most part, the average Indian is fairly oblivious to the linguistic classifications you take for granted. and, I must add that they're just as oblivious and disinterested in the AIT/AMT/OIT polemic. You talk to the average Indian about Frawley and Kak and Rajaram, and I can assure you that you will draw a blank (even from your average 'Hindutvavadi'). The average indian is at peace with the fact that the vedas etc., are from 'long, long ago... so long ago.. nobody remembers how long ago (nor can be bothered to dig)'. This attitude perhaps also explains why no serious historical, archeological or epigraphical studies had ever been carried out in India before the advent of western indologists. "Do you believe that Rama, Krishna were historical figures", "Do you believe the Mahabharata really happened?" etc., is a topic that does come up in conversation once a while, but mostly just begins and ends with a voice vote(and no.. the results arent always "Yes"). and this again, has little to do with whether the people discussing are IA or dravidas. It is not like OIT is patronised by the Indo-Aryan 'majority' alone. Like I said, the overwhelming majority(whether IA or D) cannot be bothered with any of those theories and the few who are even aware of such theories can be drawn equally from both groups.

All the above notwithstanding, I must say that the case of Tamil cranks like Pavanar, Periyar et al is unique and different. I do not know of any parallel anywhere else in India. And your parallels between the Pavanarite/Periyarite crackpots and German cranks of WWII is certainly not misplaced. It is a perfectly valid and fair parallel and I dont see any reason why you should be coy about it. If Hitlerian cranks concocted a superior Aryan 'race', Periyarites simply drew from linguistics(of all things) to concoct their 'Dravidian' 'race' (superior, of course). The parallel is certainly uncanny. It is one thing to criticise (perhaps, even hate) Hitler and his pals for all their evil but another thing to be so paranoid as to be excessively worried about political correctness when talking about it.

I'll be grateful if you can throw similar light on the linguistic dynamics of Europe. In many ways, I think India and Europe are similar in that while they were always 'culturally' contiguous, politically they were never so homogenous. It perhaps just an accident of history that European states remained politically different entities(as they always were), while in India's case, they got stitched together. Feel free to dump it all on my talk page. Thanks and regards. Sarvagnya 08:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s - i apologise for the looong reply.. but I thought that the discussion was better off on our talk pages instead of the article's. Sarvagnya 08:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is a good level-by-level warnings in WP:WARNING. When you have already sent the final warning, then you can report the spammer/vandals/etc. to WP:AIAV. You may want to use the nice WP:TW tool to warn vandals and spammers easily. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Trigaaranus, das chönnti dich interessiärä: User_talk:Black_Falcon#Category:User_als-N Gruäss DidiWeidmann (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an excellent addition to me, same goes for the Barry Fell page. ClovisPt (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty offended by the pigster userbox. See Wikipedia:Userboxes for recommendations about content. I'm sure that you'll find a better way of expressing similar sentiments. :) Concerning Thor's Hammer, you might try coding the link [[Mjolnir|Thor's Hammer]] to bypass the disambiguation page. (Don't put any nowiki statements in the final product. They're just so you can read it out of edit mode.) Finished link would look like this: Thor's Hammer Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly liked the pun on trilobites. "...That box does need cleanup, be it only for the language..." Actually I was thinking more of the photo content than the wording. (Verbosity is the mark of a dedicated Wikipedian.) My level of offense was minor but I thought I'd mention it ... but I know of at least four pretty good sized ethnic/religious groups who might find it really offensive especially if they click on it to get a better look. If it was me I'd either put up a thumbnail of the same photo so when somebody clicks on it they won't see so much anatomic detail or use a different photo for the Bambi effect. Maybe something like Image:Lamb first steps.jpg ? But all this is just my opinion and it's your userbox. Glad to see you fixed the Thor's Hammer box. Regards. See you around. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trigaranus! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to be of help, but anti-paranormal-goofballs fights are so exhausting that I only participate in those where I know the topic, and I'm afraid I know nothing about this one. Good luck! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've replied to your comment on Talk:Coverb#Coverbs in Swiss German???. Best, G Purevdorj (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know this is pretty late, but i left you a [minor and unsatisfactory] response at Talk:Chinese verbs#Modal Verbs. One other thing that just popped into my mind is more or less unrelated (other than that it has the word "modal" in it)...while German has prevalent modal particles (like ja before a verb or something like that, I think?), Chinese has mostly discourse particles (corresponding to German ja at the end of a sentence) and few if any modal particles.

Also, I noticed on your userpage that you're interested in linguistics. Are you a member of WikiProject Linguistics? I have been slowly starting to work on expanding coverage of linguistics topics on WP (mostly neurolinguistics areas, and some syntaxy stuff) and you are always more than welcome to join in; just leave me a message if you have any questions or suggestions! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The descent of this historical character was much disputed between Romanians and Hungarians. I guess you were surprised by the "rough" form of the present text, with so many citations and maybe unnecessary words. This is true, but this is the outcome of the long debates that page has been through and if you will look to the references many of them are written by prestigious editors. "Cleaning" that material would give the opportunity to Hungarian or Romanian supporters to reiterate all the edit wars that have happened until now. Hope you understand the situation better now. Carpaticus (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - tried to take a look but the article appears to have been deleted. Sorry I didn't get there in time. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 02:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found it (small typo in the link, it's Jack o' the bowl). --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 02:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Triganus. I have added data of some reviews on the "linguistics" works of Alonso and Arnaiz in the Iberian Language talk page [1], it's considered absurd, utterly faulty and against common sense.

You you also review the editions of the users that write this articles as they use to be editing only the ideas of Arnaiz Villena and according to editions as this one in which Iberomesornix adds images as the creator as Arnaiz-Villena it's self promotion or spam. Later the same Iberosormix added the image as "Honoratio Weller" , but the origin of the Iberian-Guanche images is this pdf by Arnaiz-Villena.

You can look what is written in that pdf, and you will see how he even translate ancient Egyptian via Basque language and tells that Champollion didn't decipher Egyptian, etc. etc. It's an enlighting reading.

The Iberian-Guanche_inscriptions lunacy has been added even in the article Epigraphy and Garum, so there is a clear will to full the whole wikipedia with the Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso ideas.

I am aware that that goes against wikipedia rules, but I don't know which is the proper way to put an end to these irregular editions. Could you report this to some Administrator with authority on Epigraphy and Linguistics. I am not acquainted enough with the wikipedia and its Administrator. Thanks.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is really funny, a new fringe theory which user:Iberomesornix surely will publish as the next great discovery by Arnaiz Villena (as in his editions he added images as copyright: Arnaiz Villena) it will be very easy for him.

By the way: surely Freud would conclude that it was a freudian lapsus meaning that user:Iberomesornix and user:Virginal6 are the same person (a Spanish proverb says: "piensa el ladrón que los demás son de su condición"), but I believe (pace Freud) that even user:Iberomesornix does not believe what he says, that it is only another provocation. My English knowledge is too poor for such an identification mistake.

Did you know that Arnaiz Villena and Alonso García not only sell books on their crap-descoveries, but also sell CDs with courses of 300 hours. Such a lunacy!!!

Regards --Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am getting tired of the lack of etiquette of Iberomesoronix and Virginal6: they launch personal attacks, insinuations or change the deletion stamp. Virginal6 said he will afford references, but gave none; and that had no problem to apologize, but did not apologize, etc. etc. They must be aware of the complete lack of scientific value of the questions they suppport, but they do not mind. It is like a joke. Sad, very sad.

Look what User:Virginal6 writes here: "Somebody with a conflict of interest removed the page", "This page was deleted yesterday (done by Iberomesornix) on false bases", "They invented that the main page information source (Arnaiz-Villena et al discoveries) authors do not have qualification". It is a total distortion and a personal attack to the people who do not agree with them. A complete lack of Wikipedia:Civility.

The fact is that they simply ignore the reliable sources evidences (and the logical data), and only try to confuse.

Iberian-Guanche_inscriptions is an unacceptable article in which his authors has quoted authorities (as Gómez-Moreno, Gimbutas and Pilcher) in a way to make believe to the reader that they support the theory or that it is a mainstream theory. It is full of paragraphs that has nothing to do with the question (almost philosophical). It has been written by User:Iberomesornix a user that adds files of Arnaiz-Villena as they own (later they add the same files as from an unknown Honorato Weller, but the images come from Arnaiz-Villena works), and so we have objective clues to suspect that it is Arnaiz Villena itself who is lokking for self-promotion and lacking WP:NEU. Even User:Virginal6 has exactly the same thoughts that we can find in Arnaiz-Villena writings. Not only on languages or scripts, but even on more general questions. For example: that tall story that the Pennsylvania Sumerian dictionary was a project given up, and that that was because they see they did not understand Sumerian. At best they are fans, at worst .... And they called those who do not agree with their fringed ideas "interested" and denounce conspiracies!!!!!.

They (or he) said that Pilcher only deals with lybic inscriptions, not with those on which wrote Arnaiz, but if you look at the Pilcher base, you can find many of the alleged Iberian inscriptions as Latin-Canarian, sometimes even read, and explained (as AWATI). The fact that it's difficult to find more is only due to the lack of scientific quality of Arnaiz publications: yes, many alleged drawings of alleged Iberian inscriptions, but no references to the identification of those inscriptions. And some of them look simply as fragments of longer inscriptions.

But as any reader can see, the most frequen sign of the alleged Iberian-Guanche inscriptions is A. Just what we can expect in an alphabetic script, but KA in Iberian (which is not so frequent). But typical frequent Iberian signs simply do not exist in the alleged Iberian-Guanche (those that do not exist in Latin ;-).

The name itself is silly. Because if they were Iberian (Iberian script, Iberian language) thay should be called Iberian, not Iberian-Guanche.

I am tired, because I afforded reliable references and data, and those two users simply ignore them and launch unpolite comments. The simple fact that Arnaiz itself said that no Iberian language expert has beleived his claims states that it is, at best, fringe science or a crackpot idea, if they cannot find any authority who agrees that it is Iberian script (and/ or Iberian language) the article has no sense at all, it is only claptrap.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aber ja, ich bi scho dä wo du meinsch. --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI, Trigaranus. I have seen that User:Iberomesornix, that "simpa" fan of the Iberian-Guanche ideas of Arnaiz-Villena made four editions changing the date of the deletion tag (he changed the original date from 12 to 14 and to year 2010). As the undoes did not suffice, finally I made it directly. Please, take a look, and see if I made it well. Thanks. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the ongoing AfD and dispute about Iberian-Guanche inscriptions, I have proposed that the proper course of action is to move the article to a new, neutral title and do a thorough rewrite, so that it does not present just one point of view on the issue. As you seem to be well-informed on the subject and involved in the controversy, I was wondering what you think of this solution. If you think it's a good idea, what would you think is a more appropriate neutral title? Cool3 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm afraid I removed your empty section recently added to the the A-V page because I couldn't work out why it was added. Sorry about that. I then realised that there must have been an explanation, so traced back to the AfD. IMO A-V is a maniac whose utterances in "reliable sources" have allowed fringecruft to flourish on many pages. Paul B (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again and sorry for the delay. I feel that talk with those two users is a waste of time, their "arguments" are so...... I suppose I can not vote in the discussion for the deletion, but, if I find time, I could add some thoughts and data.

There are some others articles I would like to contribute, but use to be very complex and, in order to do something useful, it would require previous preparation and take many time (add to this taht my written english is no good enough, and so slow). For example, I miss some references in the Etruscan language page, but is so complex to add them (as they affect almost the whole article).

If you think it would be useful me to add some comments in the page on the deletion, I will try.

The main problems are:

• nobody believes that those inscription are Iberian (as Arnaiz himself said on the "linguists" expert on Iberian language);

• the signs of the inscriptions are odd as Iberian and need some tolerance to be accepted as that, but when we see the whole inscriptions we see that they lack many typical Iberian signs (typical and frequent) and that those signs that we expect frequent in Latin alphabet (as the vowels) do are frequent in those inscriptions

• Pilcher himself shows that we can find the same words when we read those inscriptions as Latin alphabet that the Lybic-Berber script just beside them (being so bilingual or "bigraphical" inscriptions)

• reliable sources (as a matter of fact all the reliable sources) show that nor Arnaiz Villena nor Alonso has the slightest idea of Basque language, and so that their translations are a childish game.

On the off-topic claims of his supporters:

• Arnaiz has not any scientific credential as linguist (nor his fellow author Alonso). He is medicine doctor (and his fellow has a degree on History by an open university). No reputed journal of the linguistic field (only biological) has accepted their works.

• on the censorship. That claim is absurd as Arnaiz and Alonso have published (usually selfpublished by their Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Linguisticos) many books, probably more than a dozen on their alleged discoveries. I consider their claim on censorship an insult to all that people that really has sufered censorship or even those honest researchers that do not have such publisher resources.

One last question. Why these two users have not included their "brilliant" theories in the Spanish Wikipedia, when anybody can read the articles without problems, and where some people do know Iberian language and script???? I think I know why ;-)

In this wikipedia you may ask to user_talk:Tautintanes that writes on Iberian language in many wikipedias his oppinion on that Iberin-Guanche crap (although better in his spanish wikipedia page)

On the other questions. Yes, Barry Fell works are a good example of fringe theory. But the youtube link seems wrong :-(

BTW: did you see that in the tal of the Iberian-Guanche page, user Iberomesornix has completed the edition of user Virginal6. May I suppose he forgot he was in the "other" pc when he edited? ;-) :-D How malevolous I am :-D :-D

Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I am not acquainted with the Afd policies (in fact I thought that only users with a minimum of editions coul write). Now I am "on the fly" and have nop time, but I will try to shorten it tomorrow (I hope). May be I could put the full comment in the talk section or in the Iberian Guanche page?. Thanks again. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it seems I am late to shorten the edition. I could not connect to Internet with time enough until now. Next time I will try to read policies more carefully (or hope to have a better internet connection ;-). But at least it seems that all ended well. Greetings. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to annoy you again, but the two boyos have maken a come back. Virginal6 has even manipulated my own editions, and the Iberomesornix has remade the deleted page as Iberian-Canarian scripts. This seems to be becoming too long, and I am tired of their lack of civility. Maybe it is time for an adminstrative warning? At least somebody should remember them that the other's edition are not to be manipulated. Thanks, and sorry again, I suppose you are as tired as me of such bore guys. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dumu Eduba,where are you?I would like to have some personal words with you and may come to some agreement(?).Could you E mail me?I only put a bigger case letter in one word of your writing.I do not think that this is for making a case in order to remove information for public view. Sorry to use your page ,Trigaranus,but D.E. is dissapeared.Please,let convince him to deal directly with me. Thank you ,Trigaranus----Virginal6 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC) 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly sweet of you to pop by here. My guess is that he's in Spain somewhere...! ;-) He's got a talk page as well, you'll find it by following his signature (e.g. a little above this on my talk page). Good luck! Trigaranus (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad, indeed. But it explains all this nonsense and personal attacks. Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Antonio Arnaiz-Villena.Apparently, User:Iberomesornixis not either.You should try to raise proofs t o raise proofs that "Iberian-Guanche inscriptions" do not exist and not going to "discover" who wrote a true information which is now being reviewed.Somebody will acusse you both of being the same person.Please,do something costructive.--Virginal6 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seem like a nitpicker/jerk to you, I really didn't mean my comments as a dig. I was surprised German split at such a late date is why I started the questioning. I knew IEistst was some typo. But Google was no help when trying to search down IE. What I was trying to say is that digging around I found PIE in a number of pages but not IE . I do appreciate the effort you took to answer what probably seemed to you and maybe was a stupid question. Nitpyck (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, Italy and Spain where again taken out of the Germanic Peoples article. I believe they, the peoples you listed on the talk page, and all peoples worldwide with germanic heritage should be included in the article. Its important to note the worldwide distrabution of germanic peoples, and the legacy they left behind. The article is about germanic peoples, and not germanic languge. Let me know if you have any feed back on the subject when you have some time. Thanks. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CS: "sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Clearly, asserting that Germanic peoples inhabit Spain or (all but the far north of) Italy is likely to be challenged, and it behooves you to find reliable sources corroborating that claim. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've replied to your comment there. Let me know what you think. Lingamondo (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hello. I've seen your name around. The thread is in the compound names of the tribes that went to Greece and Galatia. You can do a search on the Internet, say "Boii Galatia -boy" and find it but from working on Wikipedia I know you are not going to be happy with that. You want me to do it, isn't that the way it goes? Actually I do have the Greek and Latin and have many of the original sources in printed form so I might be able to do it easier. The thing is, it is a lot of work to get it right. I was not scheduled to be back on this for a few weeks. I just finished a stint on Great St. Bernard Pass and I ought to go on to the Po river - but - I like to see happy customers. It is not a single ref you are asking for but a few sections on the Celtic invasion of Greece and Galatia. The whole last 50% of the article was never set right - you can tell from the ancient references section. I think what I will do to keep you happy for a while is get back on the Boii and finish the Greece and Galatia sections. As far as your never having heard of it is concerned - well - did you ever research it? One can never write this type of material from previously held, half-remembered concepts, I find. That applies to me too. So, I will get this article past the Galatia stage and then I hope you will let me put it back in the proper order on my list, as there is still a lot of work remaining on it, which will take at least a few more sessions to accomplish. So, the material you are asking for will be coming in over the next few days as I get time to do all the lookups. Best wishes and I am glad someone in the country or out of it is interested in the Boii. I will keep in touch until your request is satisfied. I should be done, say within a week or so unless called away, in which case I will let you know. Bye now.Dave (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right, there is no direct evidence, no statement, here these are the Boii, the way there is for north Italy. Nevertheless some have made a case on circumstantial evidence, which I am going to go over briefly. I almost have it together. The Tolisto-Boii/Bogi is one link. The main fact though is that they came from the Danube where the Boii were strongest apparently both before and after so the leader of all the Gauls (Brennus) could hardly have avoided including some Boii in his command. The people that take this view see the Boii as an overall name for people that have more local names. Then there is the distinction between Galli and Galatae and Galatae were clearly on the Danube and in the Balkans. Bogi appears more frequently in the alternative names for Bavaria - instead of Boio-varii it is Bogo-varii. This situation is parallel the Tectosages, who were Volci, as our article makes clear. Material like this is not solid I agree so it should not be presented as a solid argument but I am not having a problem getting the refs. It is a scholarly opinion although too tenuous for the more careful students who give an ancient ref for every sentence. There is a lot of material on the theme that some tribes of mixed Germanics or others and Celts came from the residency of the Boii. If that goes in it will have to be in some future section. Along those lines, there is also a view that Slavic ethnogenesis includes critical Celtic elements. It relies on place names in Poland and the Ukraine and the resemblances of some Slavic words such as "boy" (Pokorny) and I want to cover that view in some article at some time but you know I'm not ready yet. If one tries to cover too much too fast on Wikipedia one vanishes into thin air. Nothing gets done. Anyway thanks for your interest and these issues should be brought up. I will do the sections I said and then move on to the next on the list but I will keep coming back until this is a good article and properly and aesthetically formatted.Dave (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I finished making the case such as it is under Tolistobogii. I don't know if it quite merits being taken with a grain of salt, but it is an implicit case rather than an explicit one. It represents one line of thought concerning the Boii so I think it has a place under them; i.e., it isn't my speculation and it is not a wild speculation. Whether you want to give credibility to it is up to you, as is whether you want to think of the Boii as the people of kine or the hitters. There are more interesting educated speculations to be had from the place names. I just learned of the Boisci, a people of Scythia in the land of the Cossacks. Well, but that is for the future; for now we have not even adequately covered the explicit Boii of the future Germany and the fate of the Italian Boii, much less the spin-offs of the Danubian Boii. I'm going to do more on the history of the Tolistobogii to round the article out better and then go back to my usual list. If I'm headed in any direction on Wikipedia, it is time to start doing it. But, the Boii are on my list for future returns. Best wishes.Dave (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I was wondering, if you have any spare time you could help bring the Romano-Germanic culture article up to par. I have noticed the subject falls under one of your areas of expertise. Thanks. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was trying to convert one sandbox in a new article, but the system does not stop showing me warnings on the important of data on biography on possible libels (ironic!) and can get out of all these warnings.

The article is based on the es:wiki article, but it is not a translation and I have added references and data (and delete questions I feel irrelevant). This is what I tried to add as comment to the edition.

The reference to the Colegio Trilingüe (created in the XVI century) is especially interesting, IMHO.

What can I do? Of course if you want you can create the article yourself.

One note. I am not satisfied with centering "Arnaiz" researches (in fact Alonso and Arnaiz) as "Iberian inscriptions" instead of "usko-Mediterranean theory". It's not logic. I want to remember that against Pichler and Múgika (two of my references) even Arnaiz1 has not launched any of those absurd accusations of libel. As it's phrased now (especially without any criticism) it could be deceptive for the reader.

The same mistake is when is presented as an expansion of Dene-Caucasian: as the Dene-Caucasian roots are very diferent of the Usko-Mediterranean "roots".

BTW a curiosity: why have I been accused by Virginal6 of being the sockpuppet of three different users, and to be virtual, but no other user has been accused of being my suckpuppet. It's discrimination, censorship, an attack to my human rights!!!! Ooooh, my God  :-(

:-D :-D :-D :-D  %-) --Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! They're rightfully cautious about libel on WP (mostly because of nutjobs starting articles saying: "XY is a giant penis." etc.), but your article looks fine. Can you show me a WP:Diff that you got a warning for? The warnings are just there to play it safe, they shouldn't stop you from entering the article into WP. If you want me to, I can also have a look at the English. As for the other article, I also felt that it deserved a little more detail. Trigaranus (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for being considered a virtual character. Better than spending your time publishing about a virtual past culture of virtual people whose inscriptions never seem to make any sense. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it was a fail in the wiki:engine or it (the thing) has a better opinion of me now. I have retried it and no problem, no warning!.

Yesterday the problem was that the text in the box get blank (as lost?) and two series of warning. From the first I got to the second but the second converted in a never ending warning of Moebius.

The pity is that I do not know enough the publications of de Hoz as to make a selection of his major articles (which would be a good thing, I think). Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumu Eduba (talk • contribs) 10:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2]? Clothes? If so, can you make a comment on both the article talk and edit the image description? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the original information from the link you posted under the picture, I would be very keen to see it. As far as it looks now, it is less the clothes itself than two stylistic elements that seem to point to the 19th c. rather than the early 17th:

1. the facial features appear stylised according to aesthetic conventions of no earlier than the late 18th c.
2. the high-contrast light on her dress as well as the manner in which her figure dissolves on the lower border mostly point toward the 2nd half of the 19th c. - it quite clearly is not a sketch for a later painting or engraving, as would be expected, but a purpose-made illustration in its own right, which seems odd for the early 17th c.

Of course, I could be wrong and the the picture could just appear to be very modern. But my bet is that it is a 19th c. illustration, more or less loosely based on an older (perhaps contemporary) picture, but certainly with a lot of artistic liberty. Where did you find it? Trigaranus (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are links available at the image description. The original website seems to have changed the picture, and the old one is dead. Perhaps Internat Archive can help, but to be honest, I'd bet that none have ever bothered to give a description/source for the image - and I have never found it elsewhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's a beautified rendition of this one, which does look contemporary. Trigaranus (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't actually think that would be a good idea. There haven't actually been to many attacks recently. The last one was today, the one before that, three days ago. You can nominate it if you like, however, I don't think it will be protected. Best, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to invoke WP:UTN where appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I do not trust - or believe - is that this phrase is ever used in English to mean Philip the Arab. It cannot, with the numeral, be contemporary Latin; and if it is not used in English, it is original research. It does occasionally occur in German; but that is genuinely outside the province of this encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trigaranus (the god with "three cranes", why ?). Sorry to use his page to write in French, but he is already blocked for three month in the French wikipedia and I can express myself much better in French..Best regards Nortmannus (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De728631 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

• editors who are blocked
• anonymous IP editors
• editors who, despite ranking in the top three of edits to an article, have only a single edit to said article

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

Comment at Duel re page split. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  15:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confess! I stole your unicorn. It tickled me ... pink.

:) Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  15:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just read your comment on the talk page for modals regarding German and English cognates. I'm a linguist and my area of expertise is English and one are of emphasis is modals in English, German, and other Germanic languages. You're right to question the previous commenters' complaints about drawing parallels between sollen and should and such. Yes, it's true that in modern German sollen normally carries the meaning of modern should in English (which is technically the role of sollten). Likewise though, should is no longer used as a conditional counterpart to shall in modern English. BUT, some people do use them in these technically correct ways. I would be very surprised if the people complaining about the use of these contrasts in the article could actually explain the proper uses of shall/should, sollen/sollten, may/might, etc. I spent a couple of years researching this sort of thing a few years ago and published one of the only papers out there on it. I'd be glad to provide a copy to you if you're interested (although it sounds more like the other guy needs to read it ;) ). Cheers -- drew Drew.ward (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Drew. I just tried to come up with a First Conditional sentence with "shall" that would take "should" in the Second Conditional, and gosh you're right. It wouldn't occur to me to use "should" as a counterpart of "shall" in any of these. But interestingly, isn't the problem rather that the use of "shall" itself has become so limited? Besides the old-fashioned "shall" for "will" ("I shall do that later." / "You shall not pass, random LotR character!"), there aren't that many statements with "shall" left, only questions ("Shall we?"). I find modals extremely fascinating for the ways in which they tend to fossilise, i.e. become ever more restricted in their use, with fewer and fewer forms, usages, and even verbs surviving. BTW I had to smile a little when I saw you use an infinitive for "sollte" (very daring, and I wouldn't use it myself!) and immediately came to wonder if I would use "möchten" as an infinitive as well. To me, they are primarily still preterites that I would file under "sollen" and even "mögen". I haven't a clue if they have become accepted enough as "new" verbs to be listed with a new infinitive in a dictionary. Anyway, enough of the ramblings... I'd love to read your paper on the topic if you have it in digital form. Best, Phil. Trigaranus (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil,

In most multi-lingual German dictionaries sollten is usually not listed as a separate deal which interestingly may be because most English-centered German courses actually list sollen purely as equivalent to should (which works fine until you get to Germany and realize that sollen is used in some cases and sollten in others and try to figure out why). Möchten however is listed separably as 'would like' which is interesting because they rarely connect mögen and möchten as base and praeterite (probably because few people would recognize the 'ch' as being originally a sound change from the original root).

I'm like you, I find modals and mood in general to be a very interesting area of linguistics, but it's amazing how nobody has ever really managed to effectively come up with a universal classification system for them. Universals in linguistics are always there but they are far from easy to design a system around. Mood is one of those one day projects that I haven't even attempted to promise myself I will finish anytime soon!

Here is the link to the paper that deals with shall/will and such http://calleteach.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/an-inventory-and-discussion-of-english-futurity1.pdf (I need to update it as I've revised the introduction into a much simpler form which can be found here (and you may want to read first as it's shorter and simpler than the version in the paper)http://calleteach.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/tampa-on-time-language/ The first paper actually covers the root, development, and technically correct usage of the English modals used for expressing the future. This paper (again the introductory part is mostly the info in the simpler TAMPA series)deals with the structures of modals: http://calleteach.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/structural-classification-of-english-modals2.pdf You'll notice in the last one that only basic information on mood is given because as with German (and every language really) one modal can be used for expressing moods (or often when used is expressing more than one mood at the same time).

Hit me up if you'd like to chat about any of it. drew.ward@calleteach.org

--drew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.ward (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it... long time to hold a grudge about something so trivial. Oh well...

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist has now been updated to include all my contributions there. It hadn't occurred to me that they might be targetted. How strange... doesn't top the redirect he put on my user page though [3] Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some part of the Dacian Artefacts are considered La Tene, im not sure if the historians use La Tene for defining the period or for defining the culture.CristianChirita (talk) Mre info about the helmet here. Helmet of Coţofeneşti. In order to avoid other edit conflict are the following http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Helmet_of_Peretu In the La Tene style? Thanks for your kind answer.CristianChirita (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Some museums in Romania are poorly documented regarding the exposed artifacts. so there are the two cases here:

• 
  this one in tagged as celtic, it is celtic?
• 
  and so this one even if it is obvious a greek type. it is any reson to consider this one celtic?

Hello, I disagree with your assertion that οὐάτεις was bisyllabic in Ancient Greek. All sources dealing with Ancient Greek pronunciation (e.g. Sidney W. Allen Vox Graeca) say the (graphic) vowels were full vowels, not glides (anyway a glide could happen after the vocalic sound). Do you have some authoritative references supporting your assertion?--Carnby (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Carnby, and sorry for being so curt in the edit summary. Celticists and their colleagues from related fields in general agree on the reading of οὐάτεις with a semivowel (I know for sure for Wofgang Meid, Helmut Birkhan and Ludwig Rübekeil) and disregard the vocalic, or vocalic + glide, reading as incorrect. The οὐ before a vowel is the standard Koine Greek grapheme for the semivowel present in other languages but not in Greek. It is extremely common in epigraphy (I encountered a OYAΛENTINA on a Pamphylian inscription only last week, or νερουα for Nerva) and in literary sources mentioning Latin or Celtic names or terms which we are fairly certain were pronounced with a semivowel, not a syllabic one. Of course, the Greek grapheme originally represented a full vowel exclusively, but it was later used in a sort of parallelism to the Latin V, owing to the absence of the F (digamma) in Koine Greek. Trigaranus (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case you should specify that [w-] is a Hellenistic or "scenic" (theatrical, that was more similar to everyday speech) pronunciation; in Ancient Greek there was a grapheme, ϝ (digamma, wau) for the phoneme /w/ that disappeared later, leaving a spīritus lēnis or spīritus asper (cfr. Ancient Greek ἑσπέρα [h-] ~ Latin uesper/vesper [w-]). So, in Archaic Greek (and some dialects of classical Greek) /w/ was a phoneme repesented by ϝ; in Classical (Ancient) Greek there was no /w/ phoneme, but [w] existed as a glide (at least in poetry; in everyday speech probably the vowel + glide was already reduced to [w-]); in Hellenistic Greek the situation was more or less the one described by you (cfr Οὐαλέριος ~ Valerius). Cheers.--Carnby (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Can only see to send message to you with Baklava. Hope you enjoy. anyway, thanks for interest in Jago - I agree Hoeh's views are far out, but represent a significant number of blogs, references, particularly refering to the bible (and Geoffrey's Historia) as historic documents. I expect most sources of British iron age history are unreliable, or at least open to interpretation. Could I suggest changing the emphasis rather than removing? 'Modern scholarship' would be pretty dull, unrepresentative, and ultimately inaccurate if it didn't include (and clearly identify and criticise) all views. The history of interpretation can be as important in analysis as the primary sources themselves in our understanding. As for Jago of Ennian, I was highlighting that 'Jago son of Ennian' has been, and can easily be confused with 'King Jago of Britain'. Please have a look and add/edit a little more about Jago and Hoeh. I'm still a little new to wiki editing, but will try and find you on talk too. Thanks Marcus MarcusBelben (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Santoni is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santoni until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Englisch ist bestimmt nicht so perfekt wie das Ihre, da können wir hier auf deutsch weiter talken..., wenn's noch Ergänzungen gibt.

Wouldn't sataranta be a more or less regular fennicisation of a Proto-Germanic *strandō? I don't have my clever books around me, but I thought an initial consonant cluster like in "strand" would normally be segmented in an ancient loan into Finnish as it is here. What other bearing would the Finnish word have on a possible Germanic or non-Germanic etymology? Help me because I'm curious! ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that both developments might be possible. However, a simplification sataranta > Strand seems more convincing to me than an expansion (do you have any example?). Moreover, fin. ranta alone already means 'strand, beach', and additionally, fin. satama today means 'harbour', as a place for landing. Combining these meanings, we arrive at 'landing beach'. And last not least, there is no germanic etymology. Seebold argues for a loan from Scandinavian (!!) via Engish into German, because the word is only attested from the 14th c. onward. HJJHolm (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Für Entlehnungsrichtungen ist stets die Etymologisierbarkeit entscheidend, und die gibt es im Germanischen nicht, auch nicht bei Seebold.

Hi. When you recently edited Yakurr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Trigaranus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Baltazár, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Changing to AfD, not such an obvious hoax it warrants CSD. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of methods of capital punishment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing list of the wives of Dagobert.--Miha (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! (And for the cleaning up that you had done before me.) Trigaranus (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Germanic peoples, you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, but that is not vandalism. If you had just looked at the talk page, you would know that "Germanic peoples" primarily refers to peoples of Antiquity, not to you or me. And besides, learn how to use those vandalism tags. One does not simply walk into Template:uw-vandalism3 like a bloody clown. Trigaranus (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(removed spurious bits (all we have for Laesø is ONE episode in the Edda for crying out loud)) Please explain.Jesper7 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer that on the article talk page, okay? Trigaranus (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I caught your caption improvement up in with reverting another edit in haste, sorry and didn't mean to do it! I need to slow down! Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I need a nap -- am a bit cranky. No problem at all! Btw the bit you meant has already been altered again. Best, Trigaranus (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impalement‎, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swiss nobility, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Laufenburg and Vogtei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Skalla-Grímr, I bolded that one "u" as a convention I've already seen in other articles that contain information on both Old Norse and Modern Icelandic forms of names. Oftentimes, the two spellings are nearly identical, but differ in just one or two letters—those letters are bolded to emphasize the difference. Check Special:Contributions/Gilgamesh~enwiki for many other recent examples (as of today). - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the heads-up. I very much appreciate it. Does seem a bit of an odd convention though, doesn't it? Trigaranus (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bit, but it does seem helpful when two spellings are long and near-identical. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]