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]