User contributions for Geriech

This account is currently blocked. (Show block details) The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

Search for contributionsshowhide

⧼contribs-top⧽

Username, IP address or CIDR range:

Namespace:

Invert selection

Associated namespace

Tag filter:

Invert selection

Only show edits that are latest revisions

Only show edits that are page creations

Hide minor edits

⧼contribs-date⧽

From date:

To date:

Show only edits pending review

Hide probably good edits

14:4914:49, 10 October 2008 diff hist −24 Antinous I like the first one better because it flows better. And love is more open than beloved and lover because it includes both possibilities and more general.
14:2614:26, 10 October 2008 diff hist −10 Antinous Just thought of another possibility. You can go with the earlier one if you think it is better.
14:2314:23, 10 October 2008 diff hist +222 User talk:Kurt Leyman →Hi: new section
14:2214:22, 10 October 2008 diff hist −7 Antinous I see what you mean. How about this? "lover" or "beloved" changed to "loved" and making things more balanced by the fact that he was a member of an entourage
13:3713:37, 10 October 2008 diff hist +3 Nearchus No edit summary
13:3613:36, 10 October 2008 diff hist +14 Indica (Arrian) →About the author
13:3213:32, 10 October 2008 diff hist −6 Antinous this is your own view and you can't impose it on the readers of wikipedia. that's just not fair or allowable. look at books and websites on the two people and you'll see by far most call them "lovers"
00:4900:49, 10 October 2008 diff hist +67 Antinous plus they are commonly described this way
00:4800:48, 10 October 2008 diff hist −6 Antinous isn't specificity better than ambiguity?

20:5020:50, 8 October 2008 diff hist +111 Antinous how's this as a compromise? paraphrasing the last but not as overarching.
20:4420:44, 8 October 2008 diff hist −280 Antinous Not sure what you mean by your last statement. But such a broad claim as introduced by the text in question must have supporting references.

13:1813:18, 7 October 2008 diff hist −3 Nicomedia No edit summary
13:1813:18, 7 October 2008 diff hist −4 Nicomedia No edit summary
13:1713:17, 7 October 2008 diff hist −300 Antinous please do not undo blindly. First there is a mispelling of his name. 2nd the story & the part that says it believed to follow a peder trad have no sources. Sounds like OR to me especially how it ends.