Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Unprotected

...please don't edit war, and respect any consensus reached here. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the present text, which is the result of discussions elsewhere during the protection, respects the decisions made above. Septentrionalis 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, after the few modifications brought in the presentation, to better respect the NPOV rule (User 80.90.57.154 23:30, 25 February 2006)

Our anon really should read WP:Consensus; revert-warring for The Truth is not an acceptable, or an effective, way to settle these questions.Septentrionalis 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Pmanderson should read WP:NPOV, which is the WP method to settle disputes, and stop trying to impose a redaction scandalously favorising his own POV (with deletion of concurrent references, excessive weight given to one opinion, vicious presentation to let the WP ordinary reader believe that one POV is the best, etc.) (User 80.90.57.154 15:10, 26 February 2006).

Pmanderson's unacceptable biaised redaction

Abusively calling consensus his redaction because he has found the support of people who share his POV, Pmanderson is trying to impose a deeply biaised redaction not respecting the POV of others, making this WP article a mokery ! Here are a few axamples of his biaised redaction :

1. Concerning Y.Duhoux work : Y.Duhoux criticism of J.Faucounau's deciphering attempt is presented as complete -what it is not- with interdiction to say that Y.Duhoux did not deal with the evidence listed in Chapter 7. But when it comes to the datation, Y.Duhoux' work is presented as the view of a minority of scholars. Amongst the ones who would disagree, Pmanderson doesn't hesitate to mention Jeppesen who based his opinion on a false translation of the Italian sentence il disco poggiava al suolo di costa  !!!! (A well-known error, recognized by all specialists!).
2. Concerning Direction of printing/reading : Pmanderson has deleted the NPOV previous redaction and goes as far as saying about Evans 1909 that : There was no general argument that he was wrong , ommitting to mention that Evans himself had recognized his error a few years later !!! (Again a well-known fact, voluntarily ignored by Pmanderson).
3. Concerning the NPOV in general : [[Pmanderson censors the mention that J.Faucounau spent 25 years in gathering evidence. He deletes all mentions to the word evidence , when such published evidence (that one may find valid or not, this is not the question!) is the big difference between the Proto-Ionic Solution and all other attempts. (While giving a disproportionate comment to the confidential publication of a research by a Dutch group about Best's deciphering attempt).

No surprise if this deeply biaised redaction will lead to a new Editwar in the future... What seems to be the Pmanderson's and his supporters' aim.. I am calling all the readers who agree with me and want to stop this mokery, to fight with me in order to stop Mr Pmanderson (User 80.90.57.154, 11:00 26 February 2006)

For the record. In the same vein as the hereabove biaised redaction, I point out that on 26 February 2006 at 22H38, [[Kadmos}} has censored under the pretext of "a too long" text the words "reprinted in 1999 and 2001 after the author collected what he claims to be substantial evidence supporting his Proto-Ionic hypothesis". Several advantages in favour of Kadmos well-known POV : a)-the ordinary reader will not know about the reprints, 25 years later, and the reasons of these b)-the word evidence (a too dangerous word in Kadmos eyes, I guess !) is deleted. And to be complete, while those 20 words were deleted, 5 lignes were added about T.Timm's theory... Is that fairness and NPOV ? I don't think so... (User 80.90.57.154 17:30, 27 February 2006)

calm down grapheus. if you want to be taken seriously, follow Wikiquette: get an account, use edit summaries, and don't shout so much. You will have to accept that you don't own this article. I agree Duhoux did not review the solution in detail. I agree that JF gathered "evidence" (but we will not say it is "substantial", that's just JF's claim). The "References" section is for articles mentioned in the text and by MoS goes before the general "Literature" section. Finally, your English is ungrammatical, and you should not expect people to clear up your grammar after you. You should be glad Duhoux reviewed JF, that makes him borderline "academic". dab (ᛏ) 15:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Why are you calling me "grapheus" ? Another of your unfounded preconceived ideas ? (But go on, I don't really care!). If this article was mine as you say, its redaction would be easy : There is only one proven attempt, the Proto-Ionic Solution, in spite of the efforts of several jealous people to present it as"fringy". You have to recognize that this is not the redaction I defend, because I respect the NPOV rule. But I would glad if anybody, including you, would do the same.
2. Like it or not, the evidence presented is substantial. But I would accept - again in respect of the NPOV rule - the words claimed as substantial, if it would make you happy !
3. Abusive motive : there is no reason to put first in the Bibliographical references the § concerning only the (highly hypothetical!) links of the script with Linear A. It has to be at the end, or integrated to the other references, in a NPOV presentation.
4. talking about border line academic for the J.Faucounau's work is a new slandering statement of yours towards all the peer-reviewed journals which have published his tens of papers. You should be ashamed of yourself...

I am not jealous of JF at all, I just think it his theory is worthless. Why, I am not even jealous of the people who have made suggestions I consider valuable. It is clear that you have a personal interest in promoting JF's views. It is inconsequential whether you are his nephew or his admirer, you are biased. I call you grapheus because you refuse to choose a username. Choose one, and you'll be known under that name. It is, of course, obvious that you are the same person appearing as "grapheus" on usenet, both from your English and from your attitude, and any attempt of sockpuppetry on your part (such as the Rose-mary stunt) is just an insult to people's intelligence. I don't understand your "abusive motive" point, the bibliography is alphabetical. JF's result may be true, but it may never be "conclusive", because of his claim that the script has no external comparandum. Without such a comparandum, it is possible to construct a reading in any language at all (although difficult. JF is a brilliant riddle solver, but there is no indication that his efforts have anything to do with the Disk at all). This article is not the place for discussion of JF's "Proto-Ionians". I ask you again to go and discuss Proto-Ionians at Proto-Ionians. The main evidence for such Proto-Ionians presented in the 2001 book seem to be (1) the Phaistos Disk (!), and (2) archaeoastronomy (!). That's it. This is about as classical a case of pseudoarchaeology as I can imagine. dab (ᛏ) 16:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

From your as usual verbose message, I'll retain that because I consider the Proto-Ionic Solution as "valuable", I am "biaised". But you, who consider it as "valueless", would not be biaised. This is maybe your way to understand Logics. It's not mine. Period (User 80.90.57.154, 17:30 26 February 2006)

no, you are biased because you know JF personally, and have spent several years defending the theory on usenet. You are also a single-topic editor on Wikipedia. Your only purpose of being online at all seems to be Faucounau. I am, on the other hand, involved in more than a 1,000 articles on Wikipedia and have no particular interest in the Phaistos Disk. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are lying saying that you have no interest in the Phaistos Disk ? You didn't stop trying to impose your POV about it !!! (User 80.90.57.154, 18:20, 26 February 2006)

"A side begins"

listings of the first few syllables, or even of the same few symbols on side A regardless of reading direction, is worthless. All it tells you that each suggestion is totally incompatible with every other. Each suggestion should be discussed on its own terms. I suggest that we do a subarticle where each suggestion receives its own section where the full text can be given if available. dab (ᛏ) 16:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fake of Vladikavkaz

This Disk's imitation was found during the demolition of a not very ancient house and brought to the Museum of the North Ossetian Republic by its owner, who had no idea of its value. The Disk was exhibited for a while in the Museum, where it attracted the attention of a few Russian scholars. The Director of the Museum made, then, a study of it, study which concluded that it was a fake and it was given back to his owner. (Unpublished information coming from a personal letter of Vladimir Kouznetzov. Therefore the adjective alledgedly). (User 80.90.57.154, 17:50 26 February 2006).

no problem, just name the museum before referring to "the museum's director". dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But I did it ! It's the Historical Museum of the North Ossetian Republic. Once again, you are talking without knowing the file ! (User 80.90.57.154, 18:22, 26 February 2006).

wtf? the "file" is here. no mention of the museum. I concede I was much too verbose with you again, I resolve to adhere to WP:DNFT more. dab (ᛏ) 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous answer, showing once again that you never take the time to be fully aware of a problem without giving your opinion about it ! Why don't you take your information from specialists, like Y.Duhoux and others, instead of blindly trusting insane persons like the one you recently quoted ? Please know that the existence of the Vladikavkaz Fake has been made known in 1992 to the scholarly world by a paper of Prof. Kouznetzov in a Russian archaeological journal. This paper has been translated in French in 2001 by Iaroslav Lebedynsky in "D'Ossétie et d'alentour". This is the way how the existence of this strange document has been made known to most specialists in Aegean Prehistory (including myself) in the Occidental countries. Little scholars reacted, except the Greek prehistorian Efi Polygianni, who published her analysis of this item in a booklet, published in 1996 in French at Athens, and completed by a paper in Greek in 1997 in Anthropos n°13. Like most of the other scholars who have seen the photos of this broken disk, Efi Polygianni was very hesitant to consider it as a genuine artifact. In the meanwhile, the Director of the Museum himself had concluded (following a personal information) to a fake and had given the artifact back to his owner. (User 80.90.57.154, 19:40, 27 February 2006).

you talked of a "Museum's Director" in the article without specifying a museum. I didn't disagree with anything you said, I just pointed out that you should specify the museum in question. You said "but I did". I said, "no you didn't", showing in a diff that indeed, you didn't. You call this a "ridiculous answer" and embark on some rant (watch that blood pressure, my friend). enough said. dab (ᛏ) 19:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind reading again what I wrote on February 26, at 18H22 ? I repeat it hereafter :

But I did it ! It's the Historical Museum of the North Ossetian Republic. Once again, you are talking without knowing the file ! (User 80.90.57.154, 18:22, 26 February 2006).

What do you want more ? The Museum's address ? I don't have it at hand, but you should find it on Internet. (User 80.90.57.154 19:10, 27 February 2006).

Proto-Ionians

I have taken the liberty of (re-)creating Proto-Ionians now. All substantial evidence gathered by JF may now be detailed over there, hopefully relieving us of the need to talk about it here. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I will contribute to its redaction once we will arrive to a NPOV redaction of the Phaistos Disk article (User 80.90.57.154, 18:25, 26 February 2006);

don't feel obliged. just accept that here is not the place to discuss "Proto-Ionians". dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss here about Proto-Ionians. But they have to be mentioned when talking about the Proto-Ionic Solution. Like Linear A has to be mentioned when talking about Torsten Timm's solution. When will you understand what fairness and NPOV are ???? (User 80.90.57.154, 18:45, 26 February 2006)

when will you learn to read before ranting? I did mention the Proto-Ionians. Faucounau has sufficient representation as it is. All details go to the Proto-Ionian article. dab (ᛏ) 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is the main point on which I disagree : since the beginning, you have tried to reduce the mentions to the Faucounau's work, when, at the same time, inflating those concerning Torsten Timm's ideas (helped in this by Torsten Timm himself). What I am asking is a NPOV traitement. No more, no less. 5User 80.90.57.154 ,11:20, 27 February 2006).

Direction of inscriptions

The anon insists on presenting Faucounau's conjectural reconstruction of the scribe's movements as decisive on this point. This reconstruction may well be correct, but it is not generally agreed upon by scholarship; neither of the reviews of Faucounau have even mentioned it. Septentrionalis 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are always using the same trick ! A fact doesn't need to be endorsed !.. Anybody may verify it by himself... (Anyway, I remember having read somewhere that J.F.'s demonstration had received the approuval of E.L.Bennett). (User 80.90.57.154 19:00 26 February 2006)

guys, everyone agrees on this. Outside-in it is. Duhoux even says that any center-to-rim reading may be discarded from the outset. So I don't see what 80 wants. Pmanderson's text is superior in terms of language and coherence and therefore to be preferred, but Faucounau's argument seems to be entirely acceptable. I suggest we cite Duhoux on this. dab (ᛏ) 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine; if Duhoux puts it that strongly, the present text can even be strengthened with , say, Duhoux says that any outward reading may be discarded; although a few decipherers are reading that way. Septentrionalis 19:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

/ I don't agree. Faucounau's argument about the reconstruction of the scribe's moves is a lot stronger than Y.Duhoux' arguments (even if they are very close). I insist for the previous redaction (User 80.90.57.154 19:20, 26 February 2006)

This is not discussion; this is insistence. The anon has produced a redaction which states that Faucounau's argument is incontrovertible, in Wikipedia's voice, which is unacceptable. Septentrionalis 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

it's not even "Faucounau's argument". Achterberg has:

Now most researchers are convinced that the text has to be read from the outside to the inside and from right to left. This is made clear by the overlap of several signs as well as the lines of the spirals. Duhoux (1977) has investigated the signs that had been stamped on top of one another ... and the ones that had been stamped so close to one another that one deformed the other ... He ascertained 19 of these overlaps and/or deformations of which 14 suggested a writing direction from right to left and from the outside to the inside, and 5 the other way around. All these latter 5 instances, however, consisted of corrections in A.IV and A.V, of which A. della Seta (1908) already ascertained that these were done in the contra direction because of lack of space. The conclusion for the writing direction is clear: from right to left and from the outside to the inside.

if you want to claim Faucounau is the original author of this argument, quote his 1975 publication. Achterberg attributes it to Duhoux (1977). Maybe I do not understand what Faucounau means by "scribe's moves". If he means something different than Duhoux, we are again in "Faucounau only" territory. dab (ᛏ) 19:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is Faucounau-only territory. Le décipmherment, pp.23-35, presents an elaborate reconstruction of the scribe's movements, including exactly when he turned the disk to work on a new quadrant. There is even something of the anon's all others are wrong tone. It is this that the anon wants to assert as consensus. Septentrionalis 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Duhoux' result is good enough for establishing reading direction, and what's more it is generally accepted. Under "direction" we should note that outside-in is communis opinio as a result of Duhoux' 1977 publication. That's it. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what you, guys, find wrong (if not that the arguments have been developped by J.F. in his 1999 book, what hurts your full of hatred mind!) with the previous redaction that I repeat here :

Direction of printing and direction of reading These can be determined by reconstructing the movements of the scribe. It can be shown from various epigraphical facts (overcuts, angular points on the spiral, corrections, etc.) that the text was written, spire by spire, alternating tracing of the spiral and printing of the signs, from exterior to the center. Moreover, these epigraphical facts (for instance the fact that most of the corrections were done on the spot by the scribe himself) show that the scribe was "composing" the text as he was printing it. There is therefore no way to dissociate the direction of reading from the direction of printing. All the scholars who have read the text in a counter-wise direction have been unable to present a reconstruction of the scribe's movements, coherent both with their hypothesis and with the epigraphical facts.

I don't see the improvement that would be your text, not saying that Evans himself changed his mind concerning his first opinion, only citing some of the epigraphical arguments (like that the centers of the spirals are not at the center of the disk), but not all, not dealing with the vicious objection : why the direction of reading would be the same as the direction of printing ?, etc. Yes, where is the improvement ? and what is wrong in your eyes with the previous redaction ? (User 80.90.57.154 20:30, 26 February 2006)

• it's longer.
• It's worse English, including the archaic use of spire for turn of a spiral.
• It's hopelessly vague
• Most important, it claims as consensus an argument that only Faucounau and our anon have ever made.
• And we don't like it. Septentrionalis 22:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The reconstruction of the scribe's movements was done by

• Bradshaw, Arnold, 1976: The imprinting of the Phaistos disc. In: Kadmos, Volume XV, Nr. 1, pp. 1-17.
• -, 1977: The overcuts on the Phaistos disc. In: Kadmos, Volume XVI, Nr. 2, pp. 99-110.

The argument of the overcuts as argument for the reading direction was first published by

• Della Seta, Alessandro, 1909: Il disco di Phaistos. In: Rendiconti Accademia Lincei, Volume XVIII, pp. 297-367.

The proof for the overcuts as argument for the reading direction was first published by

• Grumach, Ernst, 1962: Die Korrekturen des Diskus von Phaistos. In: Kadmos, Volume I, Nr. 1, pp. 14-26.

Ttimm 20:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, these papers cannot be said the reconstruction of the scribe's moves. They are just partial considerations trying to justify a left to right direction (which moreover have been strongly criticized). A true reconstruction must describe all the movements of the scribe since the beginning. None, coherent with the right to left direction has been presented. Why, if you believe this possible, you don't publish yours ? Afraid to make a fool of yourself ??? (User 80.90.57.154, 21:30, 26 February 2006)

Well, I've accepted all the suggestions here that I feel I can; if someone else wants to change it, other than to a celebration of Faucounau's genius, feel free, Septentrionalis 02:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't ask a celebration of Faucounau's genius, but a fair and impartial tratement of his work. No more, no less. 5User 80.90.57.154 11:25, 27 February 2006)

Order of the Faces

The claim that Face B would have printed first comes solely from Torsten Timm's argumentation, In fact, this argumentation comes itself mainly from a Messerschmidt's paper on the Clay tablets from Mesopotamia, which are convex on one side and flat on the other. There is no such thing with the Phaistod Disk. Both Faces are approximately flat, with a small bulge in the center of the A side. And it's obvious that this bulge has been flattened after completion when the disk was turned up to write the other side (i.e. side B). Timm's argumentation has, therefore, no value. (User 80.90.57.154, 19:30, 26 February 2006)

Then source them to him. It is, however, false to assert that everyone agrees that A-side comes first; Stawell doesn't. Septentrionalis 19:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If a source has to be cited, it's Y.Duhoux Le Disque de Pheastos p.40-41 (User 80.90.57.154 19:45, 26 February 2006)

Citations for Face B as start page:

1. Evans, Arthur J., 1909: Scripta Minoa – the written documents of Minoan Crete, with special reference to archives of Knossos. Volume 1. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. p. 287f.
2. Ferguson, Herbert, 1978: An experiment in making an inscribed clay disc like that of Phaistos. In: Kadmos, Volume XVII, Nr. 2, pp. 170-172.
3. Sornig, Karl, 1997: Wohlgemuthe Bemerkungen zum Umgang mit einem nach wie vor unlesbaren Text. In: Grazer linguistische Studien, Volume 48, pp. 69-104. p. 98. as PDF
4. Kuschnereit, Alfred G., 1997: Zum Diskos von Phaistos: Beweis, daß Seite „B“ zuerst gestempelt wurde. In: Kadmos, Volume XXXVI, Nr. 2, p. 176.
5. The argumentation of Duhoux is discussed by Timm 2005 pp. 58-60. Ttimm 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then, the redaction should be : Opinions about the order of the Faces differ amongst scholars. Period. No need to talk about fancy "technical arguments" and to give PRO and CON-arguments which will lead to no sure conclusion anyway. (User 80.90.57.154 21:10, 26 February 2006)

Protected. Again.

Obviously needs to be more discussion, or else someone filing some 3RR reports. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The anon reverted three times immediately after the unprotection, and three times just now; but to different texts. 3RR has been known to forgive that sort of thing, so I was not going to invoke them yet. If the anon is prepared to discuss the matter, I see no need to invoke them at all. Septentrionalis 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to issue 3RR warnings or blocks rather than reprotecting. There was a flurry of edits, but few plain reverts. That said, the article made some progress today, and I don't mind it being stable for a few days now. dab (ᛏ) 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to mr Katefanö for forcing [Pmanderson]} and Mr Bachmann to discuss instead trying to impose their POV by force (User 80.90.57.154, 20:00 26 February 2006).

There's no need to use honorifics, but if you must, it's Ms. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The way to start a discussion is to discuss, as you have begun to do. Wikipedia is, however, designed to prevent one user from imposing his version on multiple editors who disagree. If you feel the disagreement is unjust, your remedy is Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Septentrionalis 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"don't feed the trolls." we did. At unprotection, we should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked into repetitive bickering, but we should revert substandard edits as a matter of course and report 3RRvios. dab (ᛏ) 20:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Report is done. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Kadmos 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon under 3RR, so will unprotect. William M. Connolley 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

"Comparison" section

I arranged the additions of Bubus into a new section. As the article grows, we need to disambiguate between typological comparisons with other scripts, and actual decipherment claims. Timm's suggestion consequently now features in the "comparison" section, since it is not a full-fledged claim of decipherment. So far there is no discussion of attempts of comparison with Egyptian hieroglyphs or Semitic abjads, these may be added (is there any serious suggestion of comparison with Proto-Canaanite, or is this lunatic fringe?) dab (ᛏ) 10:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at Corsone; but Italian is not my best language.Septentrionalis 17:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ideographic

Why are ideographic interpretrations lumped with non-linguistic? I could see four divisions: alphabetic/syllabic/ideographic/other (or non-linguistic); or two lumping the first three all together, but the present division seems strange. Septentrionalis 17:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking over, I do see:

A purely ideographical reading is not linguistic in the strict sense, since even a successful decipherment would yield no information about the underlying language.

If we do keep the present two-fold division, this should be moved down to the list of attempts (and shouldn't it read "very little information"? Use of the same ideograph or the same syntax would be informative.) Septentrionalis 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, a purely ideographic script could reveal some properties of syntax, but it would likely be impossible to identify the language. Maybe we could have three divisions. Afaics, there is only one single alphabetic interpretation, while most syllabic ones are partly ideographic. I would list alphabetic and (partly) syllabic together, because they are open to linguistic criticism. Purely ideographic decipherments are just as unamenable to linguistic criticism as "game board" "math theorem" or "calendar" ones. dab (ᛏ) 19:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Mr Bachmann. (User 80.90.57.154, 19:15, 27 February 2006)

Does Pmanderson want to start another editwar ?

When, -after, in a spirit of conciliation, I gave up a stronger redaction about the fact that the Direction of reading problem can be solved by the study of the scribe's movements- I proposed the redaction : "J.F. has proposed a reconstruction of the scribe's movements, which concludes to an inescapable inward direction". Then, Pmanderson came in, trying to impose the following (incorrect) redaction : replacing the words "concludes" by the words "would also require". This redaction is incorrect, because it is not the proposed reconstruction which requires, but the epigraphical facts that Pmanderson had previously deleted ! What does Pmanderson want ? Starting a new ridiculous Editwar with me and others who share my views ? (User 80.90.57.154 , 19:40, 27 February 2006)

I'm afraid that "...which concludes to..." is simply not English. Pmanderson's "would also require" is, as far as I can tell, a good-faith effort to translate the "concludes" passage into English. Please be aware, 80.90, that even when it is grammatical, your English is often not idiomatic, and therefore is hard to interpret. --Macrakis 22:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

you are referring to Rose-mary I take it :) the point is that there is near universal consensus on inward reading without resorting to JF's "movements". We are being conciliatory to mention him at all, so keep back with claims of "unescapable". dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I may accept the suppression of inescapable, if this is really the last obstacle !.. But this is not accepting the truth from your part... (User 80.90.57.154 , 20:20, 27 February 2006).

Rose-mary, anon, Irismeister (oops!) or whatever your name is, please read Wikipedias policies regarding fringe theories and also Wikipedia:Consensus. Extreme claims cannot be presented as statements of fact. --Latinus 20:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

no, no, Irismeister [1] is a completely different person, he is the guy who was convinced by The File, and a speaker of English [2] dab (ᛏ) 20:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about fringe theories because you don't know at all the J.F.'s file, Mr Latinus !.. When a scholar has been published in many peer-reviewed journals and by as many scientific editors, one has not the right to talk about a fringe theory., even it has not been endorsed by the scholarly world as a whole. Who are you, Mr Latinus, to play the judge in such matters ? What are your references? How many papers did you publish in peer-reviewed journals ?.. And what have you read of the tens of papers and four books published under J.Faucounau's signature ? None, I gues, but one or two urls.. Discuss seriously, in the WP way, if you want to be credible... and stop threatening this poor Rose-Mary and talking about Irismeisted !.. (User 80.90.57.154, 20:15, 27 February 2006).

nobody knows the file, then, except JF and his old friend and English teacher. JF's ingenious proof remains unpublished. Maybe he does have a striking proof under his pillow, but if he does, he does a good job of hushing it up in his publications. WP is for published works, so JF's private files do not enter into consideration. dab (ᛏ) 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but *I* know the file, on one hand because I made the effort to read the c. 50 published papers of J.Faucounau, even if some of them are difficult to find in a library (so I have had sometimes to ask directly a copy from the author), and on the other hand because I also made the effort to read everything which has been printed on the Phaistos Disk, contacting sometimes the authors if necessary. In the case of the Proto-Ionic Solution, the evidence has been largely published, only the details of the statistical part have not been, but as J.F. has said it several times, l'excellence de la méthode ne garantit pas la validité du déchiffrement., so they are irrelevant to judge about the value of this solution.

And once again, I've to point out that you are going on in talking without knowing the file ! Because it's preposterous to accuse J.F. of hushing up his publications, when c. 50 have been published !.. If one gets a look, for instance, at the J.F.'s references mentioned in the book on Le déchiffrement.., he will found 28 of them quoted in the Bibliography... If this is hushing, what about the other would-be-decipherers, who have published one or two books and papers, sometimes in editions at author's cost ?.. As a general rule, you should not trust any hearsay you hear, as you have done since the beginning, but go straight to the original source. (User 80.90.57.154, 21:55, 27 February 2006°

maybe JF presents convincing arguments in his more obscure papers, but he certainly doesn't in his ISBN'd books. dab (ᛏ) 07:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you know that an IP check has revealed that you are Rose-mary. Why don't you log in and stop referring to Rose-mary as if s/he's someone else. --Latinus 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not Rose-Mary. It is : Why useful informations for the ordinary WP reader, presented in a NPOV redaction, are systematically deleted by you, folks, if not to impose your POV ? (i.e. "Do not let the readers judge ! Let's suppress any reference to J.F.'s work! Let them believe it's a fringy theory!"

My question concerns in particular the three following sentences :1)-J.Faucounau has proposed a reconstruction of the scribe's movements, taking into account all the epigraphical facts (overcuts, misorientation of the signs, etc.), which leads him to the conclusion of an inward direction -- 2)-J.Faucounau supposes an original invention of the script, but inspired by the Egyptian Hieroglyphs --3)- JF.decipherment, proposed in 1975, republished in 1999 and 2001 after gathering evidence in favour of his Proto-Ionic Solution.

What hurts you in these three sentences, if not that they are dealing with the Proto-Ionic Solution in the same way as with the ones you love, what is the definition of NPOV and more generally fairness. I am eagerly waiting for your answer... (User 80.90.57.154 16:20, 28 February 2006)

Look, Rose-mary, I asked you before to read Wikipedia's policy on obscure fringe theories according to which Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. --Latinus 16:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That the J.F.'s work is a fringe theory and a minority view is your opinion. I respect it, but I consider that it's an insult for all the scholars who have accepted to publish J.F's papers in peer-revied editions. Moreover, no serious enquiry has been done amongst the scholars who have seriously examined the said theory. An enquiry amongst those who have only trusted Yves Duhoux' criticism (what is your case, I presume) has obviously no value. The same could have been said (i.e. it's a fringy theory) in the 1950 about the Ventris' work on Linear B , after the publication of A.J.Beattie's paper in the J.H.S. 1956. Are you ready to mention that in WP, as a comparison ? (User 80.90.57.154, 17:00, 28 February 2006)

Sockpuppets

I've blocked User:Rose-mary for 24h; and 80.90.38.214 and 80.90.38.185 for 1 week as probable socks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs)

The following inserted by 80.90.39.83 on 2006-03-02 20:43:50:

A great victory for Latinus , who is expert in sockpuppettry ! See

Hi, the IP test results have come out (Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#User:Pirveli, User:Irakliy81, and User:Papa Carlo) and it appears there is no sockpuppetry. I apologise for my suspicions. --Latinus 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an unrelated case. The sockpuppet check on 80.x/Rose-mary came up positive: Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#User:Rose-mary vs. User:80.90.57.154. --Macrakis 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

hm, who is whose sock now? Will we refer to 80 as "Rose-mary" from now on? I suggest we give him the chance to pick another username: Either create a new account and start over with a clean slate, or be known as Rose-mary. I propose sprotection at this point to press home the point that this sort of game is not welcome on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 07:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

At the moment (may this not be hybris), the fair flower of Luzembourg is not among us; we have no case till the present blocks fail. When they do, sprotection has its limits. It doesn't keep rants off this talk-page; it doesn't do anything for other pages that could advertise Faucounau; and it is strictly temporary. My preference would be to let the system work.

If Rose-mary would edit constructively, she would be an asset to this page; she may have read much of this material, not just Faucounau. If she would play by the rules, she would be at most a minor nuisance, and may get bored. If she doesn't, she will quickly earn a long-term block; at which point her socks are blockable at sight. Septentrionalis 15:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The block is useless. You'll need to block the entire 80.90.32.0/19 range. But since this is a major ISP, I suggest you slap short blocks on any 80.90 IP that shows up here for as long as the sockblock was intended to last. dab (ᛏ) 18:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A few days after ...

"A few days after the Earthquake, the Minoans sent a crew to clear up the room and to recover the precious objects. During this operation, the workers had their meals on the spot, so creating this 'black layer' with charcoal, ashes and bovine bones, in which the Disk and the Linear A tablet PH 1 were found. The Disk, which had been discovered by the Minoan workers amongst the plaster debris, fallen from the ceiling and walls, was apparently discarded as worthless, and thrown into the 'black layer' of ashes." JF

Let's hear it for the crystal ball. I have added back a statement of Faucounau's reconstruction; since he did make one. I see no need to defend it. Septentrionalis 05:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

this guy is really too cool. uninhibited by academic peer pressure indeed :p dab (ᛏ) 07:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why such ridiculous comments, guys, about what is an hypothesis, of course, but fitting in with all the known facts?

1. it has been established that it's an Earthquake which destroyed the Temple Repository
2. The Repository was empty of all precious items, so one may suppose it has been cleaned just after the Earthquake
3. the black layer was made of ashes and a few bones and was limited to a small area near the wall, as would be a camp-fire
4. the disk was an intrusion in this layer : it was covered of plaster. The best explanation is that it was coming from a layer of plaster , had been picked up there, and discarded into the "black layer".
5. it was not coming from a higher store : there were no traces of burned beams in the black layer; only traces of small pieces of coal, as one may find in the remnants of a camp-fire.

Can you, guys, find a better hypothesis than Faucounau's ? (User 80.90.57.154, 10:àà, March 1, 2006)

I have no intention of "disparaging" JF by giving details on his reading. And it seems ridiculous to be accused of this by a proponent of JF's who cannot get enough mention of him stuffed into the article. JF did, in fact, read 02-12 as ka-s, reading it as a sentence particle kas. There's nothing wrong with that, a priori. Duhoux criticised the ad-hoc non-syllabic s glyph in the midst of a syllabary, but I wasn't even inserting criticism to that effect. dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You insist to add more or less dubious second hand data, published on the WEB by possible kooks, but, like Y.Duhoux, you don't want to mention the words "presented evidence", what is the crucial difference between the Proto-Ionic Solution and all the other attempts. (The evaluation of the value of this evidence being, of course, a question of opinion). (User 80.90.57.154, 18:30, 28 February 2006).

Interesting exchange with Mr Lukas Pietsch

Why, Mr Pietsch, have you suppressed the important information for the WP reader, that the J.Faucounau's deciphering attempt, presented as an hypothesis in 1975 by his author, has been republished in 1999 and 2001 after gathering of evidence ? What do you find so monstrous in mentioning this ? What WP rule is it hurting ? Is it not the WP:NPOV rule which is betrayed by deleting the words gathered evidence  ? Is it not acting like a partisan that contributing to this deletion ? I'm eager to hear your answers, Mr Pietsch... (User 80.90.57.154 ,11:29, 1 March 2006).

Just because you're an obnoxious sockpuppet who is or ought to be blocked, and editing against consensus. Nothing more serious than that, really, grapheus. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir, for aknowledging that you don't care about the WP reputation as a serious Enclyclopedia, and for giving the proof that you are part of the bunch of full-of-hatred guys (Latinus, Pmanderson, etc.), who try to impose their POV by acting as a pack of wolves, biting in alternance. (User 80.90.57.154, 12:40, 1 March 2006)

Ah, I see you've made the acquaintance of our good friend Rose-mary, the Luxembourgian equivalent of Irismeister :-) --Latinus 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know him from his earlier activity on Usenet. See my comments here: User talk:Pmanderson#Faucounau. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What those guys call "consensus" is the pack's opinion, whatever right or wrong, whatever scientific or not. About that, they don't care... No discussion with another party ! Just censoring in chorus! (User 80.90.57.154, 12:35, 1 March 2006)

it's called "consensus". Consensus can be nasty if you find yourself on the wrong side of it, and I sympathize. Irismeister made a similar experience; I have no problem accepting that he absolutely believes in iridology, and that you absolutely believe in Proto-Ionians, but these are just your beliefs, and not for Wikipedia.

I see no problem with saying that JF "gathered evidence", although nobody necessarily accepts it as such, as long as you don't insist on "substantial" or similar. I will not revert the simple statement "after gathering evidence", nor will I revert back to it, so as far as I'm concerned, I am neutral on this particular point. JF is not the only decipherer with absolute conviction that his work is irrefutable and better than any other. Wenzel [3] for example thinks pretty much the same about his own work. It's precisely this lone-dog rock-solid conviction that makes these people "fringy". dab (ᛏ) 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry, but any scientific theory or opinion, published in serious peer-reviewed journals has its place in Wikipedia. And it's abusive to call the opinion of a bunch of guys, linked by the same POV, a consensus, even if the contradiction is coming from the same poor alone WP editor (after those guys have successfully threatened and discouraged other people to take part in the discussion, as they did for this poor Rose-Mary).
2. I've modified the redaction in consequence, to respect the NPOV.(User 80.90.57.154, 15:17, 1 March 2006)

1. yes, nobody is removing reference to JF. The consensus (excluding you, obviously) is concerning his relative notability.
2. start learning about Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Vitriolic anons and sockpuppetry decreases your chances of getting your way. It's the way the community works, gain people's respect by doing work first. You seem to care only about touting JF. I do work here. I did the glyph descriptions. I did the transcription. I am uploading the glyph symbols now. I wrote at least five sub-articles to this by now (Cretan hieroglyphs, Luwian hieroglyphs, Arkalochori Axe, winged sun, Malia altar stone). This is what Wikipedia is about. Do sound encyclopedic work and you will be respected. dab (ᛏ) 15:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. If nobody is removing reference to JF's work, it has been done in a recent past by people who had never read a single line of the original work before censoring, but were trusting any hearsay they could find on the WEB, you included, Mr Bachmann ! You can't deny that.

   I do. I went to the library and took out JF's books. dab (ᛏ) 16:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

2. If I have some competence in the matter, I'll participate. The difference between me and the bunch of wolves I denounced is that I never write something about a subject I am not fully aware of. Some find it to be "old fashioned", but I believe it's the only scientifically valid approach . (User 80.90.57.154, 15:55, 1 March 2006)

Tell you what, Rome-mary. If you can explain to me what substantive difference there is between the text you keep reverting to and the edit you just reverted from (see diff) I will either leave your revert alone or propose a text which respects your scruples. I dislike your reversions because they break format, are repetitious, and not idiomatic English. Regards, Septentrionalis 16:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Vladikazvkaz disk

Just a sidenote. As I prepared to translate the article in Russian, I searched the ru.net for some data on Vladikavkaz disk. Although there are two Russian websites dedicated to Ph. d., a translation of the Le Monde article and a number of discussions, I only found a link to www.herodotus.ru which clamed the site contained the whole story about "an identical disk from Vladikavkaz". Unfortunately, a relevant thread yielded to mention of Ossetia or Vladikavkaz. So I wonder what is the source for the Ossetian story? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Irismeister entered it, 12 March 2004. His source appears to be this: link, which is a French translation of a Russian article. I have not seen, and could not read, the original. Septentrionalis 17:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found quite a few links googling for "Phaistos" and "Vladikavkaz" in Latin script, but no entries googling and yandexing in Cyrillic. This is what perplexes me, although the link you provided doesn't seem to be a hoax. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a small journal. It may not be webbed, and it's likely to be subscription only. Either would keep out spiders. Some Cyrillic equivalent of Scholar.google.com might find it. Septentrionalis 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

the story is in the Dutch group's book (2004), including photographs. The only unsourced thing at the moment is the report that the museum returned the disk as a fake (which Rose-mareus says s/he knows by private communication with the museum's director, so short of inquiring with the museum we have no way of verifying that. dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-American spelling

I see that Latinus has just gone through and systematically replaced American with British spelling, including some slightly archaic choices, together with fixing a couple of genuine typoes. This sort of thing is undesirable. Please revert yourself. Septentrionalis 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Done - I thought it'd be alright. --Latinus 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

how, now, we are all pedants here (who else would bother about the Phaistos Dis[kc] in the first place), and I agree that we do not need to have 'centre'. But 'occurring' is surely straightforward, and 'artefact' is preferable too, imho. But we can postpone such quibbles for calmer times, obviously; let's work on the substance. dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ocurring is not a style difference; it is a typo, and IIRC there was one other. Yes, let's have a good round talk about "artifact/artefact" some other time. Septentrionalis 21:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, or intended. I apologize if I was too stiff; this is one of my pet peeves, when done in either direction - see the rant on my user page. Septentrionalis 21:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hempel / Stawell / Faucounau

The following inserted by 80.90.39.83 on User_talk:Kadmos 2006-03-02 20:28

Pack of wolves, heh?, both ! Hempl, Miss Stawell and Faucounau didn't use the same method, but mainly the same starting hypothesis concerning the language (i.e. Homeric). Hempl and Miss Stawell reached these hypotheses in an intuitive way, J.Faucounau by probabilistic calculationS. This is why they don't read the glyphs the same way... You should carefully read J.F.'s books and papers, so you would avoid writting stupid things, like T.Timm (another quick reader!) who pretends that J.F. used the acrophonic method ! As a complement, yes! Not as a starting hypothesis ! (User 80.90.57.154, 200:24, 2 March 2006).

-- Kadmos 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer:

Stawell starts: "Last Jaunaury (1911) there appeared in Harpers Magazine an essay by Proffesor Hempl, ... we who follow follow reap the advantage of his labour, ..."

Faucounau starts his book from 1999: "A la mémoire de Florence Melian Stawell qui pressentit, la première, la solution de l'énigme."

As 80.90.xx.xx says himself, all have started with the same hypothesis concerning the language.

Between two of them there is a subset of symbols with a similar meaning or interpretation. For instance Hempell and Stawell start in A I with Α/α. Stawell and Faucounau interpret sign 20 in error as "drinking vase". This error goes back to Evans. At earlier photographs of the disc a handle was visible for sign 20. After cleaning the disc the handle disappeared.

Faucounau did not publish any probabilistic calculations. Kadmos 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a closer look at JF's decipherment now. He is not as clueless about Greek as I had suspected earlier. However, for a mathematician, his "statistical proofs" are disconcertingly naive. His billions to one probabilities are, of course, the chance that a random reading of the text turns out to make as much sense as his. We'll all grant him that his "decipherment" makes more sense than what you'd expect of one of the 10⁸⁰ or so possible readings chosen at random. Let's grant him that his decipherment is 10²⁰ better than expected by chance. That means that he may have found one of the 10⁶⁰ best solutions (only one of which is of course correct). The other thing is his proud conclusion that his decipherment forces us to reconsider most of what we know of Bronze Age history and linguistics, not recognizing, apparently, that it was rather he being forced to bend some very well established facts in order to justify his reading. This is not so much a sensational outcome but a glaring weakness. The most hilarious part of the book I find the identification of the lost "monkey" and "turtle" glyphs :) The bottom line is that he is a brilliant riddle solver, and I do feel the tragic quality of the 25 years he spent on this. dab (ᛏ) 09:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(note, my value of 10**80 is an estimate for the (45 100) binomial coefficiant, viz., assign 45 values from a pool of, say, 100 syllables. The exact number is irrelevant of course, the point is that it is "billions of billions" of times larger than mere "billions" dab (ᛏ))

Once again, you didn't understand correctly what J.Faucounau wrote !.. His billion to one probability refers to the following problem : "If someone could determine, not using the acrophony, eleven "probable phonetic values", what is the chance that these values look as respecting the acrophony, with identifications of the corresponding signs already mentioned by other searchers ? This calculation is simple, once you know the list of his "eleven probable values" (that he published in a mathematical paper, if I remember correctly). For instance, one, I remember it, was Sign n° 12, of which the probable value was (A)S as an ending. Well, this sign has been considered as incertain by Pernier and Della Seta, as a round shied by Reinach, Rowe, Stawell, Macalister, Evans and Ipsen, as a corn-threshing floor by Evans, as a city by Cuny. The solution round shield (aspis in Homeric) fits. Strange indeed, that 1)- the shield-solution is the majority's opinion 2)- that, if one considers incertain as recovering 5 reasonable not-already-mentioned possibilities (what seems a maximum!), the probability of finding a correspondance between the value resulting from the statistical method and one of the reasonable identifications is only 1/8 , to be compared to 1/60 (in the supposition there are 60 phonetic signs in the Script). In other words, in the hypothesis concerning the language that it has been supposed correct (what has already a very small chance by itself!), the probability of finding such a correspondance by mere chance is 1/60, the probability of finding it by having been, even unconsciously, influenced by acrophony is 8/60. You should revise your fancy calculations !... (User 80.90.57.154, 14:00, 3 March 2006).

I understand the argument perfectly well, and I repeat my assertion that it is fallacious because if fails to take into account the effect of extremely large numbers. JF's solution is one "good" solution. Out of how many? Hundreds? Thousands? He would have to argue towards a probability of it being better than any other, not just based on its strengths but also on its weaknesses, since every "solution" will be extremely improbably good if only its strenghts are considered. dab (ᛏ) 14:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kadmos, why are you still engaging this guy in discussion at all? He's currently blocked. Not just for sockpuppeting, but also for 3RR, currently since 1 March for 48 hours. Everything he's been writing here is block evasion. I think we should do something to teach him the lesson that blocks are supposed to be obeyed and not to be routinely ignored. I'd start simply erasing anything he writes on sight, no matter whether it's in articles or on talk pages. This guy clearly believes that as long as he can get a fresh IP every day, the rules are not made for him. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

if he is blocked, you should get an uninvolved admin to re-issue blocks for any IP that he shows up with here, ask for it on WP:AN/I. I was not aware that he is currently under a block for 3RRvio. dab (ᛏ) 14:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

William Conolley was doing that for a couple of days. But he usually becomes active only later in the afternoon, giving 80.90 plenty of time all day long to do what he wants. And we can't really keep running to AN/I day after day after day, can we? The guy is simply not getting the message this way. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Always full of hatred, Mr Pietsch ? You should be excluded from Wikipedia because of your arrogance and refusal of any scientific discussion. Because your only argument is : I got the guys who don't share my POV blocked !!! See for instance hereabove : Quote :

Interesting exchange with Mr Lukas Pietsch

Why, Mr Pietsch, have you suppressed the important information for the WP reader, that the J.Faucounau's deciphering attempt, presented as an hypothesis in 1975 by his author, has been republished in 1999 and 2001 after gathering of evidence ? What do you find so monstrous in mentioning this ? What WP rule is it hurting ? Is it not the WP:NPOV rule which is betrayed by deleting the words gathered evidence  ? Is it not acting like a partisan that contributing to this deletion ? I'm eager to hear your answers, Mr Pietsch... (User 80.90.57.154 ,11:29, 1 March 2006).

Just because you're an obnoxious sockpuppet who is or ought to be blocked, and editing against consensus. Nothing more serious than that, really, grapheus. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unquote.

Yes, you won in blocking me, Mr Pietsch ! Thanks to shamefull lies, like that I would be this poor Rose-mary because it happens that she has sometimes the same IP ... With her, you have had a great success, Mr Pietsch : I could contact her thanks to a common friend, and she said that she will never edit anything on Wikipedia, so much she has been disgusted by your hatred against her, Mr Pietsch... I hope you will drink champagne tonight for such a victory, Mr Pietsch ?.. Have a good drink ! (User 80.90.57.15415:25, 3 March 2006)

80, this is Wikipedia: when you are blocked for 24 hours, you take a 24h break. Anything else will result in longer and longer bans. After the 24h are up, you may return as an editor in good standing. If you keep evading blocks, you are in permanent violation of policy. I am prepared to enforce William's block. Per his log [4], he last blocked grapheus on 1 March 16:16 for 48 hours. This block would have expired 10 minutes ago, so I am afraid I have nothing to act on. If he re-blocks and grapheus re-evades, be sure to tell me and I will enforce the block. dab (ᛏ) 16:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

in fact, this is his original 1 week block:

• 22:10, 27 February 2006 William M. Connolley blocked "80.90.38.214 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (sock of rose-mary)

thus, Roseus should is effectively blocked by Connolley until 6 March, 22:10 UTC. I thus consider myself justified in enforcing the block until this time. See you on 6 March, not to worry, we'll still all be here then. You may e-mail William to appeal to shorten your block. dab (ᛏ) 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've reported now at WP:AN/I#Routine block evasion by IP 80.90.*.* and User:Rose-mary. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

for the record, I note that most IPs are 80.90.37.x to .39.x; for these, a rangeblock of 80.90.36.0/22 should be sufficient. But some edits are from 80.90.57.x, so a 80.90.32.0/20 may be necessary. Blocks of such ranges should be short, less than an hour if possible. dab (ᛏ) 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK,OK,please cool down, Mr Bachmann. If I didn't obey to the injunctions, it's because they were coming from a trial in the Stalin's way, i.e. : no hearing of the Defense before the judgment -- not even possibility of protest after because of the blocking -- General Attorney in the Mr (oops, soory !) Dr Lukas Pietsch style (See [5]. But I am sure that Dr Prietsch will explain you that this controversy was with a sockpupett of Rose-mary !). Anyway, I will stop for a while, because I've to travel. Have a gook weekend, Mr Bachmann ! (User 80.90.57.154, 8:45, 4 March 2006)

William said your original block was intended to last for one day, so I will not reblock for now. Like many edit-warriors, you seem to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is some sort of state or democracy. It is not. See WP:NOT. It is a private project, and you have no fundamental right to edit here (nor does any of us; Wikipedia lets us edit as long as we tend to benefit the project). Policy is not optimized towards justice, but towards writing an encyclopedia. Therefore the Stalin simile is very mistaken: You were not sent to Siberia, you were told not to edit a privately owned website, just like the other 99.999% of private websites you are not allowed to edit either. dab (ᛏ) 09:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)