Kadmos

Disclaimer

Note: I did not like to archive my talk page. Instead I will clean it from time to time. (Not to archive my comments to your talk page will be a favour.)

16.2.2006 cleanup / 23.2.2006 cleanup

It's your page; but it is possible you will regret this. If serious controversy arises, you may want to be able to document what was said on this page more readiliy than this.

Based

I see your argument; I would put it differently. Hempl and Stawell (and Faucounau, to all appearances) used the same method: Guessing what Greek word is meant by each glyph, and then stringing together their first syllables. Faucounau may well have, as he claims, some statistical method behind his guesses; but he hasn't published it. But Faucounau did not, despite his claims, use the same assumptions as Stawell. (I don't know that any of this belongs in the article; but it's a guidleine on what to omit).

Do we want to unprotect? We probably could just ask, since unprotection is preferred. I only wanted semi-rotection because the anon was invoking several IPs, or one, dynamic IP, and 3RR was going to be hard to enforce. Septentrionalis 21:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've done my revert. Up to you. Septentrionalis 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

No, this is a new protect, set off by the anon's insistence on Faucounau's reconstruction of the scribe's movements, being presented as decisive on the direction of reading. Discuss on Talk. Septentrionalis 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Senet / Royal Game of Ur

Hi. I noticed you made an edit in December 2006 to Phaistos Disc decipherment claims stating that some Egyptian senet boards were imprinted with markings for the Royal Game of Ur on the reverse side. I would be very interested to read the source of this claim, as I am always looking for additional information and sources on the history of backgammon, which has been speculated to be related to both of those games. —ptk✰fgs 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Paleontology

Hello Kadmos,

On 9 March 2011 you revised the Phaistos Disc page with the description of the revision: "reverting original research ref'd to a Journal of Paleontology article".

However, the section which you removed ("Signs in adjacent windings") is not original research and does not refer to the Journal of Paleontology: the section refers via a note to a publication in the Statistica Neerlandica journal.

As I indicated in the description of my revision of February 20, the DOI in the 18 February 2011 revision was incorrectly expanded by Wikipedia to the Journal of Paleontology. You can verify this on that page. Expansion of a DOI takes some time and I did not verify the expansion later; it did not occur to me that this could be erroneous. (See Template:Cite_doi for automatic expansion of a DOI.) Please be so kind to revert your reversion, or explain it better.

Thanks.

Arie ten Cate (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)