User talk:Dbachmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


User talk:Dbachmann/Archive 43

Fake Royalties Of India in Wikipedia[edit]

You may look at https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Kameshwar_Singh and his predecessors who were officialy Zamindars (landlords) and never real Kings, they were never admitted into the Chamber of Princes (cf. https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Chamber_of_Princes). I belong to that region and I do not want to quarrel with that family which was the biggest landlord of India and Kshatra Singh (Thakur) had boughgt the title Maharaja in the beginning of 19th century but this family never had any State or boundary. Vinay Jha

Nomination of Pre-Celtic Europe for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pre-Celtic Europe 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/Pre-Celtic Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 24 § 術 until a consensus is reached. Remsense 03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 方 (disambiguation) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 方 (disambiguation) 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/方 (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Remsense 00:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Candidates for the first novel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Candidates for the first novel until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Aramean-Syriac people is fully protected by you indefinitely, and has not faced disruption in a decade and a half, meaning it should ideally be accessible to any constructive editing according to WP:PROT. Would you object to unprotection of the page? EggRoll97 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tironian et[edit]

Example of etc. typeset with r rotunda in a Fraktur typeface

Way back in 2015, with this edit to R rotunda, you wrote:

The abbreviation etc. was typeset using the Tironian et ⟨⁊⟩, as ⟨⁊c.⟩ in early incunables.

Later, when typesets no longer contained a sort for the Tironian et, it became common practice to use the r rotunda glyph instead, setting ⟨ꝛc.⟩ for etc.

which is true. But you cited

  • Updike, Daniel Berkeley (1922). Printing types, their history, forms and use, a study in survivals by Daniel Berkeley Updike. Vol. I. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. p. 109.

but there is nothing on the page cited that even mentions it. In fact the word "rotunda" does not appear anywhere in this volume nor is it in volume 2 (https://archive.org/details/printingtypesth00updigoog/page/n8/mode/2up ).

Do you have a different printing to the one on archive.org? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]