Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hi CS, have you had a glance at Aecis' proposal at ]? -- ] 02:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi CS, have you had a glance at Aecis' proposal at ]? -- ] 02:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
==Mi'kmaq language==
Codex, you've broken ] at ]. Please don't do it again, and don't insult other users. Why don't you just explain your opinion at the ]? You could clear this up simply by providing sources for your assertions about the correct spelling.--] ]/] 16:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Initial Welcome Letter
Moved to archive - written by Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you accept normal discussion?
Sometimes it's a good idea to listen what other people say. If you disagree, you can provide your own arguments. But dealing with articles, related to Turkish issues, you seemed to be fully convinced with Turkish propaganda. It is typical for people who are not well- educated. Are you one of those? Test5619:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't subscribe to the "Documentary hypothesis"...!
In my own research, I have compiled a vast list of evidence that Jubilees is a far more archaic version than Genesis and the Torah. I can't exactly make this into an OR article-essay, but I will briefly mention here on my talk page, one of the strongest cases:
Take a look at Numbers 13:22. Abruptly inserted into a text about Moses' spies sent into Canaan, we find this parenthetical comment: "(Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt.)"
This little fact isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Torah. What could be the source? It doesn't fit in chronologically here at all. It's only mentioned one other place that I know: Jubilees 13:12, where it fits in much more smoothly with the narrative, where one would logically expect to find it, i.e. right after he relates about Abram going to Hebron when it was built.
Now, make an honest evaluation: Obviously, by the time Numbers and the Torah were compiled, the Hebrews already knew Hebron with the distinctive epithet "that was built seven years before Tanis in Egypt", so much that this became practically part of the title. This would mean they could hardly even mention the name of "Hebron" without adding "that was built 7 years before Tanis", and that is the likeliest way to explain why the redactor of Numbers put it in 13:22, quite out of context. But there must have been a source for this little piece of lore, one that would have presumably had it within the Abraham narrative — right where Jubilees has it. It's remotely possible that some Maccabean-era forger could have known all this, and sewn it into precisely the right spot, but I seriously doubt this. Jubilees looks much more like the source we would expect, that scholars have been guessing at all this time, a real attested source, than any hypothetical "J / E / P" source that can be reconstructed. It must be remembered that these hypothetical sources have never been archaeologically or otherwise attested, and are only reconstructions according to this theory. Also, the Maccabean "evidence" for Jubilees' date is totally flimsy and unconvincing, and is really only a rehash of religiously-motivated allegations first made at Yavneh in 80 AD, when it was excised from the Masoretic canon. Jubilees was held in high regard with the other books at Qumran. It was held in high regard by the Jews until Yavneh. It continued to be held in high regard by the Christian Church Fathers, until Nicea. Modern scholars should now make an honest reassessment of whether Numbers 13:22 isn't really based on Jubilees 13:12 as an *older* source, and like I said, that's only the first thing on my list, the tip of the iceberg. ፈቃደ 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I ask you a question, not meaningto be argumentative: does your theory rest on this sentence alone? The Jubilees was used at Qmran itdicates that it was produced with a special tendency, but acceptable enough that it remainedwithin the orthodox canon. I write as an admitted amateur. DGG08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently scholars have largely discredited the DH theory - see link] So the question is; why is it still taught by academics? I haven't checked the DH article yet. How about you? 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
That's an unsourced web posting. "Scholars have largely...] implies you have some scholarly evidence of this. Perhaps you will find that the original arguement, like most broad hyptheses, has been supplemented, not supplanted, by anumber of additional considerations. I write as an admitted amateur. DGG08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Just wanted to quickly thank you for your valuable edits in the above-mentioned three pages and for your willingness to involve yourself "in my dispute with Rovoam" ;-) I don't feel alone in those pages now, and I am grateful to you for being my partner/counterpart in those pages and hopefully in many more pages in future. Bests.--Tabib 18:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
some extracts from a website I found on Cimmerian origins one midsummer morning
A.K.G.KRISTENSEN
A.K.G. Kristensen ("Who were the Cimmerians, and where did they come from?", Copenhagen, 1988) does however bring apparently irrefutable proof that the Cimmerians upon their first appearance were indeed serving in the Assyrian forces...
The findings of Ms.Kristensen are based primarily on an analysis of Assyrian inscriptions and also on a careful study of academic analysis on the subject heretofore.
1. Assyrian reports: A series of Assyrian tablets have been found from the time of Sargon-ii (721-705) referring to the Cimmerians and their country Gamir. They are military intelligence reports to King Sargon concerning campaigns in Urartu. These show that the Cimmerians were settled to the south and not to the north of Urartu. This means that the Cimmerians were first found in a buffer zone between Urartu and Assyria. Mannae and Musasir were the neighbourhoods in which Cimmerians were first reported.
2. Where did the Cimmerians really come from? Kristensen advocates the rejection of previously held academic theories concerning Cimmerian origins: Impartial examination of the content of the Assyrian tablets leads to a rejection of the commonly held thesis adopted by many researchers. The previously held ideas supposed that the Cimmerians came from north of the Caucasus and were driven to the south by the Scythians. Place names in Scythia (i.e. southern Russia) recalled the past Cimmerian presence. Archaeologists tended to identify "the vast southern Russian Catacomb Culture from the Bronze Age" with the Cimmerians "whereas the proto-Scythians were supposed to be responsible for the Timber grave Culture" which replaced them. Kristensen quotes from researchers such as T.Sulimirski, M.Salvini, U.Cozzoli, and others who point out that the said identifications are groundless. There is no archaeological evidence for the Cimmerians (or the Scyths) ever having been north of the Caucasus prior to their first appearances in the Middle East. Nor is there anything in their culture (which in the case of the Scythians at least, was Near or Middle Eastern) relating them to that area. The Cimmerians have not even been properly identified archaeologically and we must rely on Assyrian descriptions for our knowledge concerning them. Greek accounts and place names are SOMETIMES used to support the idea that the Cimmerians and Scythians originated north of the Caucasus. These proofs are actually either misinterpreted or.(says Kristensen and the authorities who support her) are literary inventions or anachronisms, based on events occurring a considerable time afterwards...
The First mention of Gamir (=Land of the Gimirri-Cimmerians) and its date: Gamir is first mentioned in a letter addressed to Sargon ii king of Assyria. They recount the defeat of a king of Urartu in Gamir. Both Rusa-i (d.714) and his son Argishti-ii were contemporaries of Sargon. The date of the defeat and which king is involved is therefore uncertain. One group of researchers opts for a date between 709-707 while another claims that it was earlier, in 714, and Kristensen adopts this last opinion.
5. The role of Musasir: Around the time that Urartu invaded Gamir (i.e. the land of the Cimmerians) the Assyrian king Sargon had been to the east of Musasir in Mannae waging war in Zikirtu. Musasir was a vassal state of Assyria yet Urartu had some claim over it. Sargon king of Assyria claimed "broke off his homeward march" and with an elite army group attacked Musasir which he took "without battle, sacked and placed under Assyrian sovereignty". Sargon says he then invaded Urartu and Rusa king of Urartu apparently committed suicide...
Parallelisms between the Assyrians and GIMIR: The reconstruction of the above events depends upon the unraveling of several parallel Assyrian accounts. In the War against Urartu exist the role played by "Cimmerians" in one account is the same as that of the "Assyrians" in the parallel version. In these cases the "CIMMERIANS" are paralleled by the "Assyrians" and may be identified with them since the CIMMERIANS were serving as ASSYRIAN SOLDIERS! The reasoning of Kristensen is roughly as follows:
a. The reports about the Cimmerians said that Urartu invaded Gimir ("Land of the Cimmerians") in north Mannae and was defeated after which the Cimmerians attacked the land of Urartu.
b. The reports about the Assyrians parallel those concerning the Cimmerians and say that Urartu invaded a portion of Mannae called Uishdish and fought a battle on Mount Uaush involving the Assyrians.
c. The battle between Urartu and Gimir and that between Urartu and Assyria must have been in the same month, in the late summer of 714 b.c.e. (or 707?).
d. In both the account concerning the Cimmerian encounter with Urartu and that about the Assyrian campaign against Urartu the army of Urartu seems to set out from the same base. In both cases Rusa, king of Urartu, flees from the scene of battle and leaves his army in the lurch. In both cases Rusa flees by the same complicated seemingly unlikely route. In both cases forces enter Urartu after having been provocatively attacked by Urartu: In one case Assyrians and Mannaeans march against Urartu; in the other, Cimmerians. In both cases after the battle, Urzana king of Musasir leaves (albeit unwillingly) the Assyrian side and passes over to that of Urartu.
e. An Assyrian account directed to the king of Assyria which issued from the region of Zikirtu concerning the king of Urartu after his defeat states,"The Urartian, since he went Gamir is very afraid of the lord my king".-In other words, because of his defeat at Gamir (by the Cimmerians) the king of Urartu had come to fear the king of Assyria! From Zirkitu Sargon had been reported as launching his attack against the advance of Urartu in Uishdish.
It follows from ALL the above that Uishdish and Gamir were one and the same place and that the war of Sargon against Urartu was the same as that of the Gamirra against Urartu!!
7. Parallelisms between the forces of Gamir and Assyria and the explanation of incongruities: According to the Assyrians, Sargon and Sin-ah-usur, the grand visier of Sargon led the cavalry from Zikirtu and defeated a numerically vastly superior force of Urartians in the mountains of Mannae after a breakneck march. Logistically such a feat seems highly unlikely if not impossible! In a parallel situation, in almost the very same words, Sargon claimed to have personally conquered the city of Ashdod even though he had not been there and one of his subordinates had done the work. At Ashdod it is known that Sargon did not personally participate but rather
delegated one of his turtanu (nobles) to command the forces instead of him. The nature of the reports sent to Sargon concerning the war with Urartu also suggest that Sargon lacked firsthand knowledge of the encounter. Therefore it may be assumed that Sargon did not actually fight the battle but rather others (in this case Cimmerians in Assyrian service) did on his behalf.
8. The fortresses of Mannae: Some years prior to the final defeat of Rusa of Urartu, Rusa had taken control of 12 (or 20 according to another version) Assyrian fortresses in Uishdish. These fortresses had been garrisoned with Assyrian and Mannaean troops whom Kristensen claims had in fact been Cimmerians in Assyrian service since the Assyrians used conscripted exiles for garrison duties in border areas. It was over these Cimmerian (i.e. Gamirra) garrisoned posts and their neighborhood that the battle was fought. The said area was Uishdish and because of its Cimmerian-connections (suggests Kristensen) Uishdish was also known as Gamir.
The Cimmerians therefore when we first meet them are in Assyrian service...
After his defeat Rusa king of Urartu flees to Musasir and there captures and crowns Urzana of Musasir as ("mock") king of Urartu. Meanwhile, Mannaeans and Cimmerians invade Urartu and capture Urartian cities. Mannae was a vassal state of Assyria and was acting on Assyrian behalf and so must the Cimmerians have been! Sargon captures and destroys Musasir. Rusa and Urzana are either killed, suicide, or otherwise disappear.
Esarhaddon and the Cimmerians: R. Ghirshman, the scholar of ancient Persian history, believed the Cimmerians to have been in the service of Assyria under Sennacherib in ca.689 if not before then. This opinion is not generally accepted though at all events, a treaty from 679 b.c.e. in the time of Esarhaddon reveals the presence of a unit of Cimmerians in the Assyrian army. In 675 Cimmerians were reported in or close to Man (i.e. Mannae) and had assured the Assyrians of their neutrality in the struggle then taking place between rebellious Mannaeans and Assyria. Esarhaddon did not believe them. Esarhaddon described them as, "zer amel hal qa ti i, who recognise neither the oath (sworn before) a god nor treaties".
The above emphasised Assyrian Akkadian words ("zer amel hal qa ti i") have been subject to various translations all of more or less similar import. This expression has been translated differently by different researchers as: "outcasts"; "deserters"; "a race of fugitives"; "seed of dispersion" (Y.B.Yusifov); "vagabonds"; and "ruinous breed". These negative connotations applied to the Cimmerians in the time of Esarhaddon are all applicable to a people exiled from its land, at one stage serving the Assyrians, and later (in exile) attempting to re-assert its own identity. In Assyrian eyes they would have been deserting. The same expression was also applied to the forces of Lugdamne the Cimmerian king. In other words it is more than an epithet and acquired (in the case of the Cimmerians) an ethnic connotation.
Regarding the Cimmerians near Mannae mentioned above, the opinion exists that these too were still in Assyrian service though Esarhaddon had come to doubt their loyalty.
I don't have time to read all of this right now, but I did read a large section and what stuck out for me was the quote in section 2 "Kristensen quotes from researchers such as T.Sulimirski, M.Salvini, U.Cozzoli, and others who point out that the said identifications are groundless. There is no archaeological evidence for the Cimmerians (or the Scyths) ever having been north of the Caucasus prior to their first appearances in the Middle East." This doesn't make sense because a Finnish archeologist found numerous objects in the Dnieper and Kuban region, most of which were identified as Cimmerian. Of these, the most important are the Borodino treasure (1300 BC?-1100 BC), the Shtetkovo treasure with its bronze sickles (1400 BC?-1100 BC), the bronze foundry of Nikolayev (1100 BC?), and the bronze sickles of Abramovka (1200 B.C.); all these discovered between the lower Danube and the lower Dnieper. The French archeologist A.M. Tallgren used these discoveries to support his claims. I will have to read more of what you posted later.--Moosh88 20:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Codex: I just want to commend you on your work and effort. Some good info added to wikipedia. We all thank you!
POV Pushing
Quit pushing your pro-Christian Point of View. POV pushing is bad. Stop being bad. Be good. Like Jesus. WWJD? Not push POV on Misplaced Pages.
NOTE: This comment is in reference to a mild controversy on the article Code of Hammurabi, over whether or not it had any influence on Mosaic law - .34 taking the position that it had none.
As for asking "WWJD", this is indeed ironic, coming from an anonymous user who is so wont to making the most blatant direct personal attacks against other users.
Whenever people like this ask this sort of question, it always reminds me of the "logic" used to justify the fascist invasion of Ethiopia, when they rained mustard gas on the entire countryside, but killing mainly a lot of innocent cattle, as the populace were forced to hide in caves. Mussolini said that Haile Selassie had no right to resist the Italian invasion and genocide, and instead ought to "turn the other cheek", because fighting war is wrong, and not the Christian thing to do.
WWJD? So, you're telling me He had no opinions whatsoever, or always kept them to Himself? You must have Him confused with someone else; I think the line about "you must withdraw into your shell like a tortoise" comes from the scriptures of another major religion, but definitely not the Bible! Codex Sinaiticus18:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
AH
I think we make first impressions that clashed with each other a bit, is all. I'm listening to you... I've encountered lots of editors lately who've been pushing PoV creep, thanks for understanding. I was properly appalled when I saw I'd reverted your grammar correction! Wyss03:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Amharic Misplaced Pages
Hi Codex Sinaiticus,
I was wondering, have you ever considered doing some work for the Amharic Misplaced Pages?
It's really in a state of disrepair right now and could use some help. The best thing anyone could probably do for it would be to get sysop status there, and translate the user interface. Maybe create a few articles, too... It already has a logo, but the person who translated it didn't have time to work on the Misplaced Pages much... I was hoping you might.
It should work if you extract the ZIP file and click on UserInterface.exe. Then, you can click the button which says "Ge'ez ON", and you'll be able to type Ge'ez in any program.
As for vandalism, I don't happen to think it is vandalism to remove an inappropriate or offensive category; this happens all the time on wikipedia.
I urge you to let go of your focus on
our uses of differing senses of "vandalism",
what you "happen to think" in general,
what, in your perceptions, "happens all the time on wikipedia", and
your confidence that you (despite others' disagreement) have definitively identified an "offensive category".
None of these are facts, and continuion of your demanding, for your PoVs, status deserved only by facts (and apparently status even beyond what you accord the undisputed facts) can only end badly.
_ _ In particular, you need to keep clearly in mind that a Cat tag is, both primarily and to a much greater extent than any other MediaWiki mechanism, a reverse navigational device. By that i mean that a lk, e.g., is placed in an article as a forward navigational device, taking the reader from where the lk is to some other page; in contrast -- even tho it does have a secondary effect of informing readers of the article (Noah's Ark in this case) where the Cat tag appears -- the most important fact about a Cat tag is that it enables navigation to the article it appears in, from the Cat page (Category:Mythology in this case). A link is an on ramp; a Cat tag is an off ramp. Complaining about a Cat tag stigmatizing an article is like complaining about your muffler or anti-pollution device lowering the power of your engine: they're not there for power, but for their affect on other car's drivers, and taking them off for more power sacrifices the major function for a minor benefit; that's not called vandalizing your car, but it's as much vandalism (against the environment) as is tagging a stop sign with your graffitti. (And, in contrast to your car, don't ever confuse yourself by thinking about "your article".)
_ _ If you've really been paying attention to what happens here all the time, you should know that some grievances have no solution, and many that have one have no quick one. You've been shown the start of the clear responsible path for pursuing a remedy to your grievance. (FYI, if you are successful, that path will lead -- if the Cat is simply misnamed -- on to WP:CfD, where some new title(s) (that you and your colleagues will have to come up with) can be offered as the replacement Cat(s) to obviate the existing Category:Mythology by filling the roles it currently fills.) There may be other outcomes , unforeseeable now, that will meet you concerns.
_ _ Get on with it.
--Jerzy·t 19:42 & 19:45, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
Anyway, I know that my efforts to keep this article about a mass-murderer as NPoV (in both directions) as possible may sometimes seem like a claim of ownership. That's not my goal.
I think the Fuhrerprinzip content you added sometime ago is helpful and provides an insightful tie-in to a strong statement about AH's pro-active efforts against democratic process which he truly didn't believe in. You seem to want a slightly different wording than I do but I wanted to let you know I'm glad you put it in the article. Thanks :) Wyss01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The reference to Ernst Rohm as "flamboyant" is such a glaring codeword for "gay"... he was of course and it may even have contributed to his early downfall. My objection to the use of the word in the article is that Rohm's name is in a string of other names with no adjectives... for me the flow is interrupted in a distracting way, especially since it involves this particular adjective. However I agree that this is likely a big, docking nitpick on my part. I encourage you to feel free to discuss stuff with me, I'm more flexible than you might think, ok? Wyss01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
IMPORTANT NOTICE: While most English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" by the dictionary definition of "fictitious" or "imaginary", these terms, as used on wikipedia, have been agreed by consensus to have a different meaning, that does not imply this. Therefore, for wikipedia purposes, a story that is 100% factual may be described as a "myth".
Either we rename "Christian mythology" and similar categories to "Christian legends", or explanatory templates like the above should be applied to many, many pages... Codex Sinaiticus18:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Again from outside, what's wrong with christian legends? Legend is a fairly neutral word, and can be seen in such terms as the Goldenledend--the stories about the christian saintsDGG08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Wesley
John Wesley said, "You have nothing to do but save souls...". Yes, it's Christ alone who saves, but Wesleyans feel that we have to be about sharing in Christ's work. I'm just saying that Christians can dispute and argue so much (with non-Christians and with one another) that we lose focus. Hope that helps...I certainly meant no offense and apologize if I offended! KHM0315:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I replied to your reply in the "Religion and Mythology" discussion page. Waiting for your reply. If none appears I consider the discussion finished and will remove the POV tags (reread my arguements, if necessary).
(Basicly - I do agree that the article "Religion and Mythology" could use a nice "refreshing" and rebuilding and such, however POV clearly is not justified.) Androg00:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL... I actually cleaned up some badly written sentences about the insect a while back, but don't care enough to see it popping up on my watchlist! Codex Sinaiticus22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Ur-Nina
hi CS, can you explain your uncommented edit where you shifted the date of Ur-Nina by an entire millennium (but without changing the reference either here or here). dab(ᛏ)16:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Sun
Could you explain why you believe photosynthesis is so important that it must be mentioned in the intro? Others have pointed out that there are many ways in which the Sun supports life and there is no reason to place such emphasis on one. The Sun provides heat and light; photosynthesis is just one of the many processes that depend on that heat and light. Worldtraveller16:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
No one has yet pointed out what these "other ways" are that are as important as photosynthesis is. They just say there are "other ways" but don't list any of them. The other ways are Heat and Light, and they are already listed. It seems like you really don't want any readers to think of the Sun as being the cause of this vital phenomenon. In fact, in your own comments, you even seem equivocal about whether or not the Sun really is a direct cause. However, there should be no such ambivalence, scientifically speaking. The Sun IS most definitely the cause, no question or doubt about it. This is crucial because it is the main method whereby the Sun does support Life, and for that matter, Oxygen. If you don't want English speaking people to have that knowledge, speakers of other languages are still going to have that knowledge in their wikipedias. When you're talking about how powerful the Sun is, why on Earth try to keep your own people in the dark? Codex Sinaiticus17:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
As I said on Talk:Sun, the Sun is no more a cause of photosynthesis than chlorophyll is. The Sun gives us heat and light; it does not give us heat, light and photosynthesis. It's wrong to phrase it in that way. People have in fact pointed out other vital ways in which the Sun supports life, such as ensuring that water can exist in its liquid phase. What is your reason for only wishing to list photosynthesis? Worldtraveller17:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Your statement that "the Sun is not the cause of photosynthesis" I assume merely reflects what the state of English-speaking Science is. Other languages are spoken by scientists who view this differently. Like I said, if you think photosynthesis is so insignificant that you won't even allow it to be linked from Sun (because you don't want English speakers to make that connection?), you're only keeping your own people in the dark. Codex Sinaiticus18:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
You're not answering the question. Why do you believe that photosynthesis is so vital that it must be mentioned, when we do not list the other ways in which the sun supports life? Worldtraveller19:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The biologists will discuss photosynthesis where it ought to be discussed, and the earth scientis willdiscuss the other parts, and it is not sensible to try to put all of that into every mention of the sun. The sentence "the sun supports life" is obviously not intended as exact.DGG08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Things have been quiet for a while. Do you want to take me to task for the solution I advocated? Or, do you think that it's fair and appropriate (distinguishable from correct)? — Mark (Mkmcconn) **07:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Negus negust vs. Niguse negest
Hi, Codex Sinaiticus! Due to our interests I guess it was inevitable that our paths would eventually cross.
The principal reason -- actually, the only reason -- that I changed the transliteration of this Amharic phrase to Negus negust is to be consistent with how I have spelled it in about 80 different articles. In short, every article I have written about an Emperor of Ethiopia (from Yekuno Amlak to Haile Selassie) I have spelled it that way, for the sole reason that it seemed to me the simplest & most consistent way to render it in the Latin alphabet. And no, I do not know any Amharic.
So if you'd like to spend an hour or two changing every time Negus negust appears in those articles to Niguse negest, go ahead -- but warn me first so I don't accidentally assume that these articles are being targeted by a vandal. My principal concern is that Misplaced Pages be consistent, although as close to accurate as possible. -- llywrch00:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I will gradually make the change in all the articles, since "Niguse Negest" is accurate, but "Negus negust" is neither accurate nor consistent, since it renders two different vowels as u and as e, and renders the vowel e as both e and u...! Codex Sinaiticus02:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I've warned the anon for violating 3rr; if he does it again he will be blocked. In the meantime, do you have any links to the discussion of what is covered by this category? I'm looking myself and I just want to make sure that I've seen all the evidence so that I don't do anything silly.--Scimitar17:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it looks like your interpretation is correct, Codex. I sort of suspected it from the beginning, but I'm trying not to jump to conclusions. Thanks for your patience.--Scimitar18:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"I nearly reverted; this article is still very poorly written and needs lots more work; also too much valid info cut from the old article needs to be re-merged)" user:Codex Sinaiticus
I think it's very easy to say that, I find it offensive. I did not update the old article just for fun, I found it incomplete and partially inaccurate. Just read it:
"The Arameans or Aramaeans were a Semitic, nomadic people mentioned six times in the Hebrew Bible, who dwelt in Aram-Naharaim or "Aram of the two rivers," also known as Mesopotamia, and the adjoining region including parts of modern Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Iran." (old article)
Do you know how many times "Aramaeans" is mentionned in the Bibles? I guess not 6 times.
Despite the fact that I accept that the new article still needs work (discussion), it is not a valid reason to discourage users who try to improve articles. I guess this is what WIKIPEDIA is all about, a team working toward producing the best articles, I don't think Misplaced Pages counts on every user to produce perfect articles, if that was the case, then no need to that link called EDIT THIS PAGE.
Although I take it with a grain de sel, I hope others will not be discouraged by such comments you make.
My last question, why didn't you just reverted it to the last version?
Hi, thanks for your corrections and clarifications to my rewrite of the Saul article. I wonder if you might be interested in working with me on weeding out the articles based on Easton's Bible Dictionary. I think it is a travesty and an embarrassment to wikipedia that so many articles are based on it, and I think there needs to be some sort of organized effort to rewrite all articles based on it. This is especially true of articles on people not largely known through the Bible - for instance, various Babylonian kings, and the like. But it's true of the Biblical articles, too. Easton's Bible Dictionary simply isn't an encyclopedic source. It much, much worse than the turn of the century encyclopedias that have been used to write articles, for instance. Anyway, if you're interested in this, or know anyone else who might be, I think this would be a highly worthwhile venture. And not even necessarily that difficult - my rewrite of the Saul article took only a few minutes. johnk23:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Afar stats
It's okay now. There really are 6 articles. The counter on the main page was broken; I've fixed it now. I was using a counter on my user page, which has always functioned; I never looked at the main page and didn't realize that it wasn't formatted. Thanks for letting me know. David Cannon23:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't answer that one, except that I know that MANY wikpipedia projects have a discrepancy between the article counter and the ALL PAGES link. Whether the problem is with the counter, or with the updating of the ALL PAGES link, I have no idea. That's something you'd have to ask a Developer about. I'm not a Developer; I know User:Angela is, and there are some others. David Cannon00:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
By all means, please do ask Angela to look into it.
I'm ready to recalculate the figures; I actually have a spreadsheet that automates it. I'll do that if it turns out that there really are no articles on Afar. I'll wait till you've heard from Angela, though. David Cannon00:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
What sources do you have after 1911 Britannica? From what I understand, the putative connection was not with Rim-sin, but with his brother Warad-sin, because the Sumerian transcription of the Semitic name Warad-sin could be rendered "Eri-aku." Sources that claim this connection also equate Hammurabi with Amraphel, which hasn't been seriously suggested since the '70s at the very latest. Popular overviews tend to lag behind technical publications for decades, so the Hammurabi/Amraphel equation is still brought up in popular literature, but it has no real support in recent technical literature.--Rob11704:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Elam
Putting this up at Elam, too.
Codex, Rob, who knows more about the current state of Elamology than I do, says that no modern scholars accept the identification of Rim-sen as Arioch.
A Biblical encyclopedia I consulted says that the Arioch in Genesis was the king of Elasar, and Elasar is identified with Larsa.
It is supposed that the old Chaldean town of Larsa was the metropolis of this kingdom, situated nearly halfway between Ur (now Mugheir) and Erech, on the left bank of the Euphrates. This town is represented by the mounds of Senkereh, a little to the east of Erech.
That was also the position at a Jewish encyclopedia:
King of Ellasar, one of the four kings who invaded Palestine in the days of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 1, 9). The style of the chapter in Genesis is such as to make it probable that the narrative, though embellished, rests on some historical tradition. Midrash Gen. R. xlii. seeks to identify Arioch with Yawan (changed by the censor into Antiochus), and remarks further that coins the name of which bore some resemblance to the name Ellasar were still in circulation. It is now, however, generally held that Arioch, king of Ellasar, is identical with Eri-aku, king of Larsa, found in cuneiform inscriptions, though it should be added that no account of Eri-aku's campaign has as yet been discovered, so that only the identity of the two names can be maintained with certainty. We know that Eri-aku was conquered by Hammurabi, the Amraphel of Gen. xiv. 1, and that he became a vassal to him. The ruins of Larsa cover the site known as Senkereh.
I don't know why you're insisting on what is apparently a non-standard identification. It's not particularly germane to the article on Elam, either. As far as I know, archaeologists have generally concluded that the Torah/Old Testament is not a trustworthy guide to Near/Middle Eastern history and are much less concerned to look for known historical events and places in the Torah. Is there some religious reason that you think the Torah is relevant here? Zora02:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
just give both. it saves a lot of argument 'the traditional interp is X, while most recent workers think Y." The point of WP is not to settle such matters. DGG08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Backwards
You guys got it backwards. If you check that link on Wedge Strategy (and other fundamentalist links) you will see that the "intelligent design" people are out to destroy science (as it now stands). Do you send your kids to a doctor or a faith-healer? If you use doctors, computers, nose-drops, autos, airplanes or any modern "convenience" then you take advantage of science and engineering, but you pay it back with insults. The worst part is (and maybe will be further) that you corrupt children's minds with the simplistic idea that for any "gap" in a scientific theory, any unknown or poorly worked-out part, the anwer is just to look in the Bible. A great place for spiritual inspiration, but not for dealing with nature.
I have one question: Did you take any college science courses? What grades did you get? Carrionluggage01:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the Haile Selassie item - pretty well written and I believe it is pretty much compatible with my approach. Of course, Selassie considered himself to be the descendent of Solomon and Sheba, and he kept Ethiopia in about the most backward condition of any nation in the world, from about 1928 to 1960 with some interruptions. Ethiopia was the last country in the world from which Poliomyelitis was eliminated, namely in 1991, though there have been spotty cases around even recently, e.g. among the Amish in Minnesota. I believe Selassie had dozens of wives (mostly simultaneously) and more than 100 children, many of whom he survived. Now, I am not qualified to judge polygamy but there is the view it's immoral because the polygamist deprives other men of mates. Anyway, I do not see how this statement from the King of Kings (as I believe he called himself) has anything to do with corrupting science by intermingling holy works or myths. The moral and religious aspects of being a scientist include being honest (no faked data, no plagiarism!), working hard, making one's work available for the betterment of humanity, in many cases accepting mediocre pay and living frugally. It makes no more sense to intrude stories from the Bible into scientific data or analysis than it would to produce a "revised" Bible full of equations and data on present-day geology, biology, chemistry, etc. Morality applies everywhere, but tales which ostensibly or rightly promote morality do not belong in a science classroom any more than lines from the Rubaiyat (or, worse, the Kama Sutra!) would fit into the middle of a Shakespeare play. Carrionluggage06:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL don't believe everything you hear about Selassie. If you did, you'd believe that he fed his people donkeys (like Mussolini's fascists were telling the world in 1934), or that he sacrificed children (like Castro's communists were telling the world in 1974). It's very easy for anyone to lie. His Majesty was never a polygamist. Codex Sinaiticus14:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes we old guys have an advantage. I have not read much about Haile Selassie since about 1960 - mainly I saw news items in the period 1947 - 1958. Seems that since then the Rastafarians have probably done a good job of whitewash - many buckets it seems. Your mention of Mussolini reminds me of several Misplaced Pages sections: Fallacy, Reductio ad Hitlerum and Godwin's law. Illogic: Mary smeared Joe. Mary is a liar. Therefore Joe is a great guy. Compare, for example, the case of Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism. For decades his name was suppressed, and for good reason. All one saw was Brigham Young (BYU, etc etc etc.) But it was Joseph Smith who supposedly received magic or holy tablets from the angel Moroni. What happened, what changed? Well, Smith moved gradually West (starting in Vermont) and as he traveled, he converted many people to Mormonism, at the same time taking liberties with many attractive young ladies. Finally, in Nauvoo, Illinois in June of 1844, the local newspaper ran a scathing commentary on his conquests of the ladies, and probably other things. Oddly, the printing presses were smashed to pieces the same night by mysterious intruders. The authorities suspected Smith and associates and jailed them, but they never came to trial, because they were lynched by an angry mob. Not to justify that - I oppose capital punishment, as well as punishment without trial, but it is a nasty story suppressed for more than a century - suppressed by omission, not by censorship so far as I know. In the last two years, there have been a lot of press releases (which tend to be picked up as human interest stories) that try to give Smith a clean slate and identify him as a martyr. Perhaps the same is happening to Selassie. (OK, if I left out the "perhaps" it would be a fallacious argument, but I am just suggesting how the passage of time can improve the images of people considered to have been religious leaders.) Carrionluggage19:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well you are certainly entitled to your POV... But after a while, you get a sense of what is going to stand in an article and what isn't, and trust me brother, what you wrote in that edit I rv'd wouldn't have lasted much longer than that anyhow...! BTW I do not recognise the validity of Godwin's Law, therefore I feel free to ignore it...! Take care, Codex Sinaiticus02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't make random changes without documentation. I don't claim to be an expert on this issue, but it doesn't match the text of the articles, and it is not necessary for the user to find the correct page. I think it violates the MoS. Please revert your own change. William Allen Simpson21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about, those are the same dates given in the article, they are correct, and yes it does help the user find the right era. It's useful information. ፈቃደ21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Codex_Sinaiticus, just to tell you: User:WilliamAllenSimpson is in WP since 15 Nov and has a quite aggressive attitude. He is fast in calling contributions vandalism and e.g. warning me that I will be blocked if I go to revert (to a corrected version). And he points me to sandbox. He also comes with the 3RR rule, in my case he is acompagned by User:Golbez, i.e. they have more "revert-power" ;-) cheers Tobias Conradi(Talk)14:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Codex, I restored but rewrote the section you removed from the God article. I hope that you will find that my rewrite makes it both not POV (like the original was) and still worth having in the article. --Improv03:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
???
Thanks much (about name change). And the coin of the Wiki-realm seems to be to write liberally, so I don't mind the Rastafarian stuff - but as it was unsigned I thought somebody might mistakenly think it was mine.
Now about Noah's Ark: I find the invasion of school boards by ID people reprehensible; if successful we will just fall behind Europe and modern Asia. Right now we are coasting on our laurels (how's that for mixed metaphors). We are profiting from decades of not-too-bad education. I found the Noah's Ark item about the worst among things like Creationism, the Watchmaker item or Irreducible Complexity etc. Worse because of the strawman "objections" and "authoritative" answers. I read that tour guides from religiously oriented schools are telling children in the NY Museum of Natural History that the Ark had dinosaurs on it. My wife's aunt visited Jackson Hole, WY last summer as part of an extensive land and sea tour and was told by the tourguide (from the tour company, not from J-H) that the mountains were carved out by the Great Flood. Do you believe that the Tetons and the Grand Canyon, the Rockies and the Himalayas were carved out by the Flood?
A final interest I have in the Ark is that my wife takes long showers, after which I usually tease her that I noticed animals escaping the shower area two by two.
Anyway, I do not like nonsense such as Intelligent Design, Parapsychology (I was tested with those cards in black envelopes as a kid!) , so-called Objectivism (a poor cousin of Machiavellianism), flying saucer stories, etc. If you are as religious as I imagine I might ask why the Religions and religious people do not oppose more forcibly quasi-religious beliefs that encroach on their territory, such as parapsychology, contacting the dead (though it is part of the Mormon religion), fortune-telling and Tarot, and so on. Carrionluggage03:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Ogham
I am quite fascinated with the topic myself (plus, no pov warriors! Wiki heaven, after I've been driven off from Odin, unfortunately obscure or scholarly topic are no guarantee that they will not be patrolled by the grumpy and insane:) I'm looking for references for Bríatharogam now, but google is silent, and I'll have to wait to get to the library tomorrow. dab(ᛏ)18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I see! I was wondering about this, but otherwise I've never even heard of the guy. Obviously a kook, I'd say, but by all means mention him! dab(ᛏ)19:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted a couple edits you've made to history of the alphabet, etc, so I thought I should explain myself. For this last edit, you gave manyougana as an example of a modern alphabet that's not used nationally, but as you point out, it's neither modern nor an alphabet, and when it was used it was used nationally, so it doesn't belong. The shorthand speculation I removed as being just that. In the admittedly sparse accounts I have about the history of shorthand, More's name is not mentioned, and in any case it's not clear that shorthand systems of that age are graphically ancestral to modern shorthand or Cree. If you have a reference, it would be interesting to see. kwami06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Replied on my page. More's system was not shorthand, & d n appear t b related t Willis o Pitman. Cree akshara appear t b fm Devanagari, & final C's fm Pitman. kwami18:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Siniaticus,
I moved the sentence because it seemed to me to apply to the "Testimonium Flavianum" in general and just to that alternative version. And I still think it does apply. AFAIK, scholars nowadays tend to prefer interpolation to outright forgery. Str197716:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Myth
Sorry, i am not trying to suppress it. More trying to figure out where it belongs. I should have kept it on the talk page. What I was wondering was why when adding the link you deleted out the rest of the definitions? I'm sorry if you have been over this ad nauseum but as a new comer I'm still trying to figure out the details. This is quite a complex argument with respect to resolution. David D.(Talk)01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Codex: I left a message on DreamGuy's talk page, and figured I'd do the same for you...the "Mythology" debate won't bear much fruit unless we all watch our language. Accusations and name calling aren't good for anyone. I really think you'd get further without the "lies" language, even if you do feel DreamGuy is lying, and even if he mistreats you or misrepresents your position. You're a better editor than I am, and probably know WP:CIV and WP:NPA better than I do. I just thought I'd offer this friendly reminder; hopefully, we'll all reach a compromise. Thanks...KHM0316:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Codex I don't think your arguments are irrelvant. It is in fact one of the more interesting talk pages i have come across as this is a very good discussion. Just out of interest do you know why the OED switched the primary definition after the other dictionarys? Or were the other dictionaries always using the academic definition as the primary meaning? David D.(Talk)15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: taxis
I just don't recall seeing a taxi with twelve seats. I remember the two front seats (one for the driver), then one or two rows each with two seats, then a back row with three or four seats. Which makes 9 or 10 seats. Of course, someone might try and fit 12 or more people among those seats (though if we saw this happening we usually waited for another taxi). I'm just not sure about the statement that they "can sit at least twelve people," sort of like the old joke about how a Volkswagen can hold 10 people... if they are college students or circus clowns, maybe. ;-) -- Gyrofrog (talk)15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Now in Nazret/Adama, some of the blue & whites were small pickup trucks with a passenger compartment in the pickup bed. The seating was like you described. But I don't remember seeing these in Addis (maybe because we usually stuck to a few routes). And in Modjo I think the only taxis were garis. -- Gyrofrog (talk)16:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well yeah there are the ones known as 'talkers', the pickup trucks, because you can talk to the other person across from you. Many of the normal taxi I'm have 4 rows of seats plus the front seat so that its twelve seats, at least. Those can probably fit at least fifteen.
:-p
Thanks. I was looking for something better. I still don't think that's exactly correct, since there's little evidence to support the assertion there that extant animism originated in E. India as opposed to somewhere else (notably central indochina)...but I suppose your fix is better than the assertion it almost seemed like I was making, that the Br. E. India Co. invented animism. :-p Tomer00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The article Mythology was created by Cayzle on 14 Dec, 2001. In its original incarnation, it read:
the connotation of the words "myth" and "mythology" is that the stories are false, or dubious at best.
28 Dec 2001 - 18 Sep 2002: Incarnation I (Cayzle / Slrubenstein) excerpt:
Some use the words "myth" and "mythology" to identify stories as false, or dubious at best. Others use the words to refer to stories that, while usually not strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archtypes.
18 Sep 2002 - 11 Apr 2004 Incarnation II (major rewrite by TUF-KAT) Still a fairly neutral article that covers all pov's. excerpt:
People within most religions take offense at the characterization of their faith as a myth, for this is tantamount to claiming that the religion itself is a lie.
(slightly modified 12 Jun 2003 by anon IP)
11 Apr 2004 - Incarnation III (major rewrite by Wetman) replaces meaningful definition of myth.. End of npov language.. Excerpt:
Some people, especially within "revealed" religions that are justified in terms of an authenticated scripture, may take offense at the characterization of any aspect of their faith as an expression of myth. An aspect of fundamentalism requires that every incidental element be accepted as literally true.
TO BE CONTINUED... (checked revision history up to June '04 so far)
Suggestion on article's talk page. By the way, just in case you are suspicious (I would be), I'm not using sock-puppets to make changes to remove references to P. as princess. CHeers. WLD10:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Codex Sinaiticus, as far as I can tell from my sources, Powhatan translates as 'by the (water)falls' in Algonquian languages (which includes the language spoken by Wahunsonacock), and not as 'Emperor'. You may be confusing it with Mamanatowick, which is variously given as 'Paramount Chief', 'Great Chief', and 'Emperor'. The reason I haven't put Mamanatowick in as Wahunsonacock's title is that I have not found a good (or even bad) contemporary source for that particular appelation. I am still looking.
Given that Wahusonacock called himself Powhatan, and Powhatan was a place name of a settlement by the falls of the James River, it doesn't make sense to translate it as 'Emperor'. It is not unheard of for people of rank to refer to themselves by place-names. The English peerage does it - as well recorded by Shakespeare - so John Doe, Duke of Northumberland, is usually refered to as 'Northumberland' in text written about him, and in relatively formal conversations between peers, they will address each other by the place they are peer of.
I currently do not have access to Strachey's word list, so I don't know if Powhatan appears in it. It doesn't appear in John Smith's smaller collection, as far as I remember.
Charles Dudley Warner's writings are interesting, especially this passage:
"In 1618 died the great Powhatan, full of years and satiated with fighting and the savage delights of life. He had many names and titles; his own people sometimes called him Ottaniack, sometimes Mamauatonick, and usually in his presence Wahunsenasawk."
but I don't know where he got his information from.
To summarise: as far as I can tell we have Wahunsonacock, who was chief/king (weroance) of his own people, and paramount chief/emperor (mamanatowick) of the 30 or so affialiated, conquered, and vassal peoples in his neighbourhood. He called himself Powhatan, which is also a place name. I'm not trying to remove the title 'Emperor', rather remove mistranslations. If you can help clarify, I'd be grateful.
On another point, he ruled over between 9-14,000 people in tidewater Virginia (have you got any further in qualifying that number?). By contrast/comparison, the population of England at the time was very approximately 5 million people. I think London's population was between 100,000 and 200,000.
Codex, I reverted your change to Myth not because I disagree with it, but because it is secondary to the larger issue of whether the "this usage arose from the labelling of religious beliefs" language is either accurate or inappropriate. See Talk:Myth#Edits to popular sense for details, and please join the conversation there. Cheers. JHCC (talk)03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
hey Codex, maybe you can help me figure out the phonetic values of these modified letters, especially ሸ vs ሰ, ቐ and ኸ vs ቀ and ከ, and most of all ዸ (could it be , implosive??) dab(ᛏ)14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
ሸ is the same sound as "sh" in English, so s-scaron
ሰ (unmodified) is s
ቐ - not used in Amharic, possibly Tigrinya
ኸ - has coalesced with other "h" sounds, all like English h, but this is the only character that can be used for the ä vowel sound in modern Amharic
ቀ (unmodified) is q (sound not in English, but as in Hebrew)
ከ (unmodified) regular k, as in English
ዸ - don't know, not used in Amharic but possibly Tigrinya, looks too much like the sign for P'...
Thanks; I'm really curious about the value of ሰ in Ge'ez (as opposed to Amharic), but I'll have to dig into the literature... The value for ዸ I took from , but that's not a very good source. I am not very familiar with Old Irish phonetics, and you may get a better reply on WP:RD/L, but if not, I'll try to piece it together. regards, dab(ᛏ)15:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Giiz isa very difficult language to learn, I don't know everything but I do know enough about Giiz to say that ሰ corresponds to samekh (English s) while ሠ corresponds to shin (English sh)... Nowadays in Amharic, both these letters have the same sound (s) and are interchangeable, while ሸ is substituted for sh... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy
Hello, this is just a courtesy note. I am currently gathering information for an RfC to debate whether or not DreamGuy's recent behavior may have been uncivil. Would you be interested in participating? If not, I understand, but I wanted to make you aware. Thanks, Elonka00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ethiopian birr
I noticed your comment on Talk:Ethiopian birr and I was hoping you might be able to help me with some information about the early Ethiopian currency. I've been working on succession boxes for currencies. I have a couple of sources I use, which don't seem to agree on what the currency was called from the introduction to 1936. The Ethiopian birr page calls it birr. The Standard Catalog of World Coins agrees. http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/banknotes/ethiopia/EthiopiaP6-2Thalers-1933_f.jpg shows an example which calls it thaler in what appears to me to be French, but I can't read the Ethiopian script. Other sources call it a talari (which I'm guessing might be Italian for thaler). I created Ethiopian talari, and either need to delete it or update the text at Ethiopian birr. Can you read what the note says? Or do you have any knowledge of the currency? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Ingrid02:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I added a paragraph to the article explaining the reasoning for splitting Abyssinia and Ethiopia even though there was no political change. The currency did change from being issued by the Bank of Abyssinia to the Bank of Ethiopia, which was presumably the same bank under a different name. If you think it needs more, please let me know (or feel free to fix it, of course). Ingrid23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I appreciated our dialogue in Talk:Ugarit. As a conservative Christian, I find myths fascinating stories, but I don't necessarily believe they represent truth, although, like all stories, there may or not be some truth in them. Growing up, a few people I knew thought myths were dangerous, but most of us thought they bore no threat to anyone grounded in their faith and were worthy of study like great literature, history, and heritage. I have no idea what your background might be, but I just thought I would throw that in. When I approach myth, it is much the same as I approach literature: get the story strictly right as it was written and with a view to any truth about life that may be there. I think that keeps me with NPOV. One writer in English whom I respect is C.S. Lewis. He says that for him old myths were stepping stones from atheism to conservative religious belief, and his Narnia series uses European mythic imagery to produce his religious ideas. You may not agree with any of this, but I thought this might find this interesting. I admire your teaching yourself an ancient language and your truthfulness. Cheers. Castanea dentata00:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Armenian Arsacids
Greetings, I was wondering if you could help me jumpstart this article: Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia aka Arshakuni Dynasty, the junior Armenian branch of the Arsacid Dynasty. I'm asking you because of your impressive edit history in related subjects.
I'm currently involved in a nasty dispute regarding the intro for Nagorno Karabakh. Any suggestions or help would be much appreciated.--Eupator00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair11:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Voting
Hey, Codex. I saw you recently make an edit on the Nagorno Karabakh page, and I was glad that you contributed. If you have any further ideas, your input on the talk page will be appreciated. I remember when I first started editting months ago, you were the first one to help me with some rules and technical stuff, so thank you.
There is a voting going on on the Armenian Genocide Talk page. It's about whether to remove the POV tag from the article. The article is quite neutral, maybe too much, and to my opinion the tag should be removed. But since you are a neutral person, your vote would be especially appreciated. If you want, you can take a look at the article and decide for yourself. Thank you in advance.--TigranTheGreat10:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
CE not AD
You have reverted the dates 3 times - contrary to Wiki rules - I am therefore suggesting that you should stop or risk suspension. There is no reason why the article should be an "AD article" as you put it - AD is outdated and irrelevant though many find it\d |"christian" slant offensive. Please stop reverting without discussion and please stop wanting to install a POV date system. Robsteadman16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Robsteadman, the manual of style suggests that both are acceptable, and tradition on the wiki is to leave dates in a particular format alone. In other words, if it is in style A, don't change it to style B (and vice versa). --Improv17:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, you alone cannot overturn the established consensus that was hashed out by numerous editors, in accordance with your own pov notions of what is or is not "acceptable". Now if you don't mind, enough pages have been filled up already with this non debate; please do not fill mine with it any further. Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's your 4th revert. So much for Wiki policy! It is not a non-debate - it is important - AD is offensive and POV it bnreaks Wiki beutrality which is far more important than keeping a status quo. You have broken the 3RR rule and should be blocked - how do we get an admin to do this? Robsteadman19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Robsteadman, this has been hashed out a million times before, and sadly will probably continue to be hashed out a million times in the future. To some people, CE/BCE is seen as offensive, and these things don't even break down cleanly by religious affiliation. People have tried to change this, and nothing has ever come of it. For a recent attempt, see Misplaced Pages:Eras. Unless the policy changes (and I honestly don't think it will anytime soon), please respect the current way things are done, which I have described above. There are some circumstances where, for the good of the community, rules are broken, but those cases always involve a pressing social good -- CE versus AD is not at all similar, and people who prefer one or the other can learn to deal with not controlling the language of all the discussions they're in. I believe you will find great frustration if you attempt to change the policy/guide (although you may surprise me), and even greater frustration if you attempt to press forward without changing the policy/guide. --Improv20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If AD is used it belittles the whole neutrality of Misplaced Pages. AD is POV and should not be used unless you are trying to be offensive to other "faiths" and non-believers. It is only a guideline and needs to be addressed. Misplaced Pages should use CE throughout. Robsteadman12:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want to address it, go take your case up there then. Until and unless you manage to change things there, don't ignore the way we do things on Misplaced Pages. I can just about guarantee that there are enough people who care about the issue in various ways but have so far accepted the current comprimise that you will do one of two things: either be immediately reverted (and possibly eventually be blocked from all editing) or stir up a major disruption on Misplaced Pages. Neither of these will get you your way on this issue. --Improv18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Codex, I'm wondering if I might ask you to be a little bit less liberal in blanking discussion. I realise the anon is putting themself up on a pedistal, but I think discussing this is more healthy than zapping it. Some of the edits were simple vandalism or mockery, and should've been zapped, but being a bit more conservative on deletions is more in tune with respecting discussion. Don't feel an obligation to respond to everything they say. --Improv17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I usually don't blank discussion under any circumstances, but in this case I didn't see any redeeming merit in any of the comments from this anon who 1) pasted photographs of genitalia into the text 2) is surely the same anon troll who just got blocked for repeatedly making the same racist edits, and who vandalised my homepage... If you really think any of that diatribe needs to be restored, go ahead... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Good Work Yourself
Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate your work as well. Unfortunately my Amharic isn't as good as it was when I was a little kid, so I don't think I can properly contribute to the Amharic wikipedia. Be sure that I will add what I can on the English one, though. Yom04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
POV on God entry
Thank you for pointing out as such; I'm admittedly late to the conversation, and was hesitant to make the reversion. There are too many people who want to push their own lack of religion on those of us who are Christian or otherwise spiritually inclined. Mhking21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Codex, I'm wondering if I might convince you that the opening to God is presently not good at being NPOV, given that it asserts the existence of a god:
God is the term used to denote the mythological deity which pertains to all known existence
It would be better, I think, to try to state it in a way that does not take a position on the issue, calling it neither mythological nor stating it to exist. --Improv23:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Not in a spirit of opposition, but simply wanting to know the facts, I would like to ask you to indicate the verifiable source for your statement about original sin in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It seems to be contradicted by an Armenian website, which states that the Mother of God "was cleansed of all sin (original sin) as she was the vessel in which God manifest was to be incarnated". Lima08:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
A week has passed without a source being quoted. I have therefore, at least provisionally, replaced your statement in the Original Sin article. Lima05:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems you are on some kind of busy-body agenda to go around to every Church or religion in the world like you are the authority, and ascribe Original Sin to them. DO NOT DO THIS. Stick to your own beliefs. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Abro yisTen. If you have figured out how to say 'Amesseginallehu, you might also perceive that no one in the Armenian Evangelical Church can set doctrine for any Oriental Orthodox Church outside of Armenia at any rate, so I was a little taken aback when after a week you told me "time's up, I'm reinserting what I think your doctrine is for you!" I apologize if I sounded brusque, but it just looks like you are coming out of nowhere, like someone had specially appointed you to point out what you think other churches doctrines are or what you think they should be... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
You seem to be under a misapprehension about the New York-based Armenian Church diocese whose website I quoted. It is part of the Armenian Church headed by His Holiness Karekin II, Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicosate of All Armenians, and is listed as such on page 31 of the 2005 edition of Orthodoxia (Ostkirchliches Institut, Regensburg). The content of the website should be enough to show it is not of the Evangelical/Protestant variety. You will have seen that I have not reverted your revert, and have not raised the question publicly on the Original Sin talk page. I prefer to leave it to you to restore to the Original Sin page the account of what the Armenian Apostolic Church, which, as you know perfectly well, is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, actually teaches, not what someone thinks it should teach. Perhaps you will also give a source for your own statement about the teaching of one or more of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches. I do not wish to remove your statement from the page as long as there is some hope that it can be shown to be verifiable, as required on Misplaced Pages. (Some day, I must ask you to be good enough to explain to me, preferably with International Phonetic Alphabet characters, what exactly are the seven Gi'iz and Amharic vowels: I believe I was wrong in supposing that the vowel in "Gi'iz" was the Slavic /y/ or the Turkish /ı/. That's enough ውይይት - with more of the vowel that I mistook - for now.) Lima15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It is disappointing that you have not yet restored the sourced account of Armenian teaching. Lima14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
When I wrote "Armenian Evangelical" above, I meant to say "Armenian Apostolic". My point remains, that noone in that church sets the doctrines for the Ethiopian, or any other Oriental Church. So if you want to write that someone in the Armenian Church believes in Original sin, make sure you write exactly that, and do not try to ascribe this view to the others or make them "guilty by association". Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
CS, if you continue to edit Babylon as you wish, without presenting any legitimate arguments and references, and without a general consensus--I WILL report you for your 3rr violations, and whatever else I can.Zmmz02:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Kingdom of Axum
The theory that Axum was an indigenous empire (as well as it's predecessor D'mt) is not that new. It's only "new" in relation to the older theory that it was founded by Sabaean immigrants, a thesis that is no longer accepted by many prominent Ethiopian historians. Firstly, the former theory was introduced by Conti Rossini, according to foremost Ethiopian historian Richard Pankhurst, "based on largely conjecture." Moreover, the finding of Ge'ez Graffitti and inscriptions just as old as the Sabaean one greatly undermines the former theory and even the current belief that Ge'ez script (if not language) is derived from South Arabian. Moreover, work by Jacqueline Pirenne showed that Sabaean immigrants were in Ethiopia for just a few decades. Not to mention that the kingdom of D'mt was already established by the time of this South Arabian migration.
Dr. Stuart Munro-Hay, a foremost scholar on Axumite history, also is doubtful of the Sabaean colonization hypothesis and presents sound evidence undermining it.
This period is not of major concern to us here, and in any case we have very little information about it; but some consideration should be given to the situation in Ethiopia before the rise of Aksum, since the source of at least some of the characteristics of the later Aksumite civilisation can be traced to this earlier period. Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon in this respect is that by around the middle of the first millenium BC — a date cautiously suggested, using palaeographical information (Pirenne 1956; Drewes 1962: 91), but possibly rather too late in view of new discoveries in the Yemen (Fattovich 1989: 16-17) which may even push it back to the eighth century BC — some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia. This developed to such an extent that in not a few places in Ethiopia the remains of certain mainly religious or funerary installations, some of major importance, with an unmistakeable South Arabian appearance in many details, have been excavated. Among the sites are Hawelti-Melazo, near Aksum (de Contenson 1961ii), the famous temple and other buildings and tombs at Yeha (Anfray 1973ii), the early levels at Matara (Anfray 1967), and the sites at Seglamien (Ricci and Fattovich 1984-6), Addi Galamo, Feqya, Addi Grameten and Kaskase, to name only the better-known ones. Fattovich (1989: 4-5) comments on many of these and has been able to attribute some ninety sites altogether to the pre-Aksumite period.
Evidently the arrival of Sabaean influences does not represent the beginning of Ethiopian civilisation. For a long time different peoples had been interacting through population movements, warfare, trade and intermarriage in the Ethiopian region, resulting in a predominance of peoples speaking languages of the Afro-Asiatic family. The main branches represented were the Cushitic and the Semitic. Semiticized Agaw peoples are thought to have migrated from south-eastern Eritrea possibly as early as 2000BC, bringing their `proto-Ethiopic' language, ancestor of Ge`ez and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages, with them; and these and other groups had already developed specific cultural and linguistic identities by the time any Sabaean influences arrived.
I would be interested to know how 1948 A.M. is arrived at for Abraham's birth. Because the book I have that adds up all the ages found in the different versions says 1946, and it's using the same figures from the MT to get that number. I'm just wondering what might be causing that 2-year discrepancy. I can reproduce the whole calculation adding up to 1946 if you like. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is explicitly stated in the Midrash. Also if you add up the years in Genesis 5:3–5:28, factor in 7:11, and then count the years in 11:10-11:26, you get 1948 years. Of course, that very last link is weak unless you believe that Avram, Nahor, and Haran were triplets, but as Avram is mentioned first, it is likely the 70 years applies to his birth. Furthermore, the midrash has the exodus occurring 2448 after creation. Factoring in the tradition that this was 400 years after Isaac was born , that would make Isaac's birth in 2048. Abraham was 100 years old at Isaac's birth, which would make him born in 1948. I would have to search for an explicit midrashic reference, but this tradition is millenia old. -- Avi22:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, that still leaves me curious as to how the 2 year discrepancy came about, so let's see if we can figure this out. Here is the calculation in my book (The Interpreter's Bible, old Edition, Vol. I, p.143):
(Numbers refer to the "age at giving birth" given in the Masoretic Text, of course the older versions have different figures, as I mentioned):
Adam - 130
Seth - 105
Enosh - 90
Kenan - 70
Mahalalel - 65
Jared - 162
Enoch - 65
Methuselah - 187
Lamech - 182
Noah - 500
Shem - 100
(Flood is AM 1656 according to this calculation)
Arpachshad - 35
Shelah - 30
Eber - 34
Peleg - 30
Reu - 32
Serug - 30
Nahor - 29
Terah - 70
All these figures added together=1,946 AM when Terah gave birth to Abraham. Where are your figures different? Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the discrepancy: Genesis 11:10, Arpachshad was born two years AFTER the flood. -- Avi 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed your interest in this article. I would like to encourage you to cast a vote for the alternative names that are currently being proposed. Thanks for your help on this matter --T-rex04:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: 3RR violations of the anon at Sermon on the Mount
I've blocked him again for 24 hours, which is the maximum allowed by the policy at WP:3RR. Let me know if the borderline personal attacks and/or revert pattern continues - there are avenues we can pursue for further action if the need arises. (ESkog) 03:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. Make sure that you are very careful not to break the 3RR rule on that article yourself - in my view neither side's edits are purely "vandalism" as this is more of a content dispute. (ESkog) 01:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked again, this time for 72 hours. If he comes back and does the same stuff, you may want to consider an RfC for user conduct. (ESkog) 21:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
about this edit of yours. Among all the blather about comic books, "fictional universes", and so forth, I see only one shipping line. So why mention Marcus Garvey, let alone link to him and Africa? I'd thought that minimal descriptions were the way to make a disambig page as small an obstacle as possible on the way to the desired page, but maybe I misunderstood. -- Hoary15:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Codex, I am getting rather tired of your nonsense on the A&E page. Your comment that it is disputed that a parallel was identified is utterly absurd. You actually wish to dispute the parallel itself. Thus, you add-on is irrelevant, and wrong.
As for the nonense that the Hebrew was mistranslated, then I would have to say that you must be the only person who understands Hebrew, because every Bible I've looked at in the 12 languages I can read translates the Hebrew the same way: the timing of the creation of plants, Adam, and animals in Genesis 2 is identical in all of them.
The elimination of half of the second paragraph in "Christianity" makes absolutely no sense. It is sourced, unobjectionable, accurate and NPOV.
I would like to thank you for this note, however, as it is a good point: For example, the serpent is generally equated with Satan, although this is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Jim62sch18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You're totally misunderstanding. Of course it's not disputed that a parallel is identified. It's the documentary hypothesis that is disputed. It seems like you really don't want it to be mentioned that the Documentary hypothesis is disputed, and want it to appear incontrovertible. All I'm doing is pointing out that's not the case for NPOV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
CE and AD...
You have said a number of times in the Historicity of Jesus article (in edit summaries) that it is "Misplaced Pages policy" to use AD and BC, rather than CE and BCE. Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) either is acceptable, as long as we are consistent within the article. It should also be noted that the second paragraph states clearly that that page is just a guideline, not a strict policy, pointing out that
clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting.
The fact that so many Wikipedians have expressed disagreement over that with you using nothing but "Misplaced Pages policy", as you call it, as a defence, shows that the current format does not come off as unbiased or neutral. You yourself have said that you are more concerned with preserving your Christian system in Misplaced Pages than with being "politically correct".
I most certainly never said any such thing. Please do not put any words in my mouth that I never said, if you cannot cite them with a link. I only stated that Misplaced Pages policy allows both systems to be used and does not favor one or the other, which is correct. I also stated that Misplaced Pages advises editors not to start edit wars over the question, but to leave each article in the era format it started out in, which is also correct. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
is where you made the remark to which I am referring. You clearly advocated old-fashioned, religiously non-neutral terminology in schoolbooks, and hinted at wanting to preserve the link between church and state. We don't need that kind of POV on Misplaced Pages. The "policy" to which you are referring is not, as I said, a strict policy, but more of a general guideline, and specifically notes that neutrality is far more important than the type of formatting mentioned. The fact that so many people have tried to change things because they took offence (or believe others would take offence) shows that the way you want it is not neutral. If you want to contribute to the Catholic Encyclopedia go right ahead, but Misplaced Pages is at least meant to have a universal appeal, and the only way this can be achieved is religious neutrality. (By the way, I find it offensive when people are not objective, and bring either their own or my religion into a discussion of an academic article.) elvenscout74221:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, that is not what my post you cited says at all. It says exactly what it says; it is a post I made right here on my very own talk page, back when I had been a wikipedian for about 2 weeks. It says not one word for or against preserving the link between any Church and any state. Were you offended because I used the word "Marxist"? If you want to resurrect old grievances over this issue, I suggest you try WP:ERAS and all 12 of their associated talk / vote / archive pages, and have a blast. You'll find a raging controversy there that never ends, roughly divided 50-50 between people who think such as yourself, and more reasonable types that don't want you guys foisting BCE on an unwilling world. Please don't turn my talk page into yet another battleground for this; I have no problem with standing policy, have better things to write, and don't want to hear about it unless it changes. Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You said that the reason you were offended by the terminology was not because you associate it with an irrational and inconvenient movement (which I could have understood), but because you are disturbed by "minimalist"s trying to downplay the supreme authority of your allegedly more-valid-than-others ideology in academic contexts. Misplaced Pages is an academic context. It is also not an exercise in democracy (I couldn't be bothered providing a link to that well-known page, especially if you're just blindly going to put your whole link, to my inconvenience, in upper case), and so what the (predominantly Western, Christian, biased) "community" has to say on the matter shouldn't carry any weight. Nothing in particular in that post offended me, but I was just pointing it out - the fact that I generally try not to bring the fact that I personally take offence to things here, when you have a tendency to argue things based on the fact that you feel your religion is insulted by the use of neutral language, and others shouldn't have the right to be offended by your forcing a Christian slant on things. As a rule, I have seen Christians do this a lot more than any others - only on one occasion since I got here more than a year ago has a non-Christian mentioned their religious beliefs in a discussion with me, and then it was only to point out that they understand the Hindu POV from a subjective stance. Notice the way not once in this argument or others of its nature have I brought my own religions into the equation? By the way, I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and if anything would have a very strong Christian bias; but I don't, and if I did I would keep it in check. elvenscout74222:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, all that "allegedly more valid than others" stuff is your words, coming off your keyboard, not mine. I have never once said anything remotely resembling that on any page. I'm still not sure if you are proposing a specific change to a specific article, or if you came here just to argue in general. If all you want is an quarrel for quarrel's sake, like I said, try WP:ERA and leave my poor page alone! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours William M. Connolley19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe this guy I have been fighting with at Adam and Eve over inadequately cited material actually had me blocked for 12 hrs. for a 3RR I didn't do. If you take a look, I did not do a 3RR, of course I know better than that, that's why I have never been blocked before in almost a year.
What I did was put a tag asking for a cite 3 times. When he kept reverting, I then removed the uncited sentence completely the fourth time. That's hardly a revert.
Hello Codex Sinaiticus, I looked into your edits refering to the article Adam and Eve. Indeed you were rightfully blocked. You reverted 5 times on the article in under 24 hours. I would just wait out the duration of your block. It was not a revert of vandalism but a content dispute. You're only excuse to reverting an article beyond 4 times would be in the case of blatent vandalism; which it was not. IMHO, I suggest contacting an administrator for assistance with a situation like that. Moeε21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note, the last two reverts I made today were totally unrelated to the 3 reverts yesterday... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but I don't necessarily think the block was in error. From the 3RR page: Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part... and I would hold that your fourth edit, while not a revert in the technical sense, still had the same effect as slapping a {{fact}} on there. However, I know others' opinions may differ, so I'll leave the {{unblock}} at the top here and see what others have to say. A block isn't the end of the world. (ESkog) 21:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to respond to Codex's last comment, it doesn't matter if you reverted for another reason than the day before. It's based on the revert itself and the amount of reverting. Moeε21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case, to be even-handed, please count the number of reverts he made in that same time frame, because he reverted more than one other editor, to exactly the same version he didn't want changed... And then he goes and reports me! My reverts were not even the same edit! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I blocked you. Having spent a fair time trawling through the diffs I am now insufficiently sure this was justified that I'm going to unblock you. My apologies. *However* be aware that if you skate this close to 3RR accidents like this are going to happen William M. Connolley22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Since you've been unblocked, I've removed the unblock tag. However, I just want to clarify that you can be blocked for making different reverts: someone adds a sentence to the third paragraph and you delete it; someone else changes a word in the fifth paragraph and you change it back; someone moves a paragraph to a different place within the article, and you move it back; and then, finally, someone deletes a sentence in the last paragraph, and you put it back in — in such a case, you have made four reverts, since it's the act of reverting that counts. Obviously reverting of vandalims wouldn't count. Cheers. AnnH♫23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Accusations of bias
Codex, twice now in edit summaries you have accused Jim62sch of having a bias, and in one of those you claimed he did not believe in religious freedom. I have two questions.
To what are you referring, please?
Do you think an editor can have personal bias, and yet edit in an unbiased way?
There are people out there whose stated goal is to destroy religion. Sure, at the same time they will say it isn't true, but all you have to do is look at North Korea, or look at the way Albania used to be, to see what the world they "imagine" with "no religion" is like. The fact that there was no religious freedom in these countries, proves that some people are the enemy of religious freedom. There have been enemies of religious freedom at every time in history, and now today in 2006 is no exception. To answer your second question, when an editor states such a "personal bias" with these userboxes, I think it is much harder for him to edit religion articles in an unbiased way, much harder for me to trust that they are indeed neutral; and the nature of the edits, that are not neutral, but pushing one unique POV and suppressing others, proves my point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be one thing if he just made a couple of minor edits, but he and others go from article to article on Anrahamic religion, rewrite the whole thing from their hypothesis, and expect to maintain it that way permanently as if authoritative. Sorry, but the memories of Communist countries are too fresh in the human memory to allow that to happen without expecting some resistance. People believe what they want, not what they're told to believe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Please answer the question. You have stated in edit summaries "THis guy openly admits on his homepage his agenda is hostility to freedom of religious belief" and "your biased pov agenda is quite plain from your user-box". Are you stating that the {{User lennonist}}, which includes a quote from John Lennon's song Imagine is a statement of opposition to freedom of religion? KillerChihuahua15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The sentiment is fairly obvious (and not too subtle) no matter who stated it. But reading the article linked from the template just now, it appears that Lennon himself stated the song was, quote, "anti-religious". And that is the one single most anti-religious lyric in the entire song (yes, I've heard it) , that anti-religious wikipedians use as a flag of their anti-religiousity. But while other pov boxes get deleted, this one has the appearance of being in good graces. Which is actually good, because it lets us see who the anti-religious editors are. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You have no such userbox, but we've edited the same articles a few times, and if I recall correctly you are a monotheist of one of the Abrahamic religions - if I am remembering incorrectly, or if you have never stated nor implied your religious beliefs, apologies. However, turning the question around - do you consider it possible for a follower of a religion to edit in a NPOV manner? KillerChihuahua16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's possible for anyone to edit in a NPOV manner. Whether they follow a religion, or do not. Sometimes people have to work at it. It basically means summarising all the widely held views, whether you personally agree with them or not, not cutting any of them out, and writing in language that does not appear to take any side, especially the more disputed ones. But looking at the actual edits to see if they really are NPOV, or are pushing one pov, is a different matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. With this in mind, I request that you are a bit more careful with your edit summaries, addressing the merits of the edits not the percieved bias of the editor. thanks -
On an unrelated topic, what font or setting must I have in order to view your sig as anything other than empty boxes? thanks again - KillerChihuahua16:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, but I still think the issue partly arises from editors who proclaim their own biases all too plainly, putting a strain on "good faith"... You must have GF Zemen true type, or something comparable, in your computer font folder to see the sig. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful, I finally got the font installed, and you are no longer little boxes. Thanks! On the other subject, it can be trying when users parade their bias, but OTOH surely it is better not to inflame the issue, or presume bias exists on anything short of very blatant proclamation of bias by the editor in question. KillerChihuahua03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
2 neutral pov. One editor on Roma said the article was 'for the Roma'. That's not what Misplaced Pages is for.
3 no original research. Saying 'In my experience' is original research.
If you put something in that breaks one of these rules, YOU are the vandal.
RE: Thanks
No worries, saw it while monitoring Recent Changes. I've got the WP:AN/3RR up right now in a tab in case it happens again, and im thinking about asking for a new/anon user lock on the page -M18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
New addition to Enoch 1
Hi Codex how's it going, how about something like this in the intro content section?
A number of Christian theories that take different meanings of particular sections or the book as a whole can be found at and . Some of the information such as comparisons with other books is very interesting and useful. They are written based on a particular point of view and don't appear to have been taken up in any serious research. It has been said that early Christians used this book to convert Jews to Christ however this has not been cited from any relevant research.
The reason I'm trying to add it was I'm a little concerned that it would appear that were totally ignoring other views on the books interpretation. If we add something like this it shows that different interpretations exist, sends them out to relevant pages if they wish and shows were aware that it may vary? If you think I should just add the links I will but I felt that it deserves a more prominent position due to its importance to the subject as a whole? Best Regards -- Shimirel00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes your quite right Ill try and stop that annoying habit. As I said the majority is based on Schoddes view which continues over into Charles. Hope that clears it up as I said just trying to expand what's their and make it easily understandable. Regards -- Shimirel00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Bachman
Can we do something about this bachman fellow? He is being a little annoying on his revert wars on rajput page also.
Holy cow, we actually agree on something: "I have seen only specious reasoning on the talk page, but no valid reasons. The man did not speak Greek. Be reasonable" •Jim62sch•00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Noah
thanks for looking at my concerns with the documentary hypothesis passage and producing something better. --Drmaik21:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Codex, is this really what you mean to say? "It has also been said...that the origin of the the word God comes from the Persian Language..." I.e., the English word God is derived from Persian? I have a feeling that what you really meant was that the Persian word khoda has the same derivation as the English word god (with or without a capital), but it's not what your sentence says. ((It's 6am and I'm sitting in the cafe at Kuala Lumpur airport with nothing better to do than write nit-picking comments on people's Wiki entries. Sorry. I have four more hours to wait for my connecting flight... Oh Khoda!) PiCo22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I see now. That section needs a clean-up. The article as a whole needs to be better focussed - needs to decide just what it wants to be about. Maybe one article on the etymology of the word(s) for god in IE languages (and others if anyone feels inclined), a separate article about differing theological concepts (monotheism, etc etc).I think Wiki tends to breed unnecessary articles. Kuala Lumpur is in Malaysia. There's a word in the Philippines for God, Bahala, pre-dates Spanish, no idea where it comes from. Cheers PiCo00:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the problems caused by moving your message on the Montezuma/Moctezuma vote
I was trying to re-organize stuff so that people wouldn't have to read the whole discussion to understand who was for Montezuma and who was for Moctezuma. I did recognize that the "No, no, no" was going to wind up referring to the wrong thing but I wasn't sure what to do about it. Presumably, you've fixed things so that it all works now.
Hi. I'm wondering why you reverted my changes to "Native languages" in the Aboriginal peoples in Canada article. It was originally "Aboriginal languages" when I moved it from the Canada article. Then an anonymous editor changed aboriginal to "native" back in February, see ]. That editor also made similar changes in other articles. Aboriginal is the accepted term in Canada for indigenous peoples, enshrined in the Canadian constitution and accepted by aboriginal peoples themselves, see for example Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. I am curious why you reverted and I am not interested in engaging in an edit war, hence this note. I was about to add more information on aboriginal languages, but I don't want to do that until this issue is resolved. Luigizanasi22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That's strange. Why then do the Native Council of Nova Scotia, the Mi'kmaq Business & Service Directory, and a Mi'kmak spirituality site, to mention only three Mi'kmak web sites, seem to have no problem with the "Aboriginal" term and in fact use it. You got me curious, do you have any references to objections of the word "Aboriginal"? BTW, using the word "Tribe" for a First Nation is definitely considered offensive here in the Yukon, although "Tribal Council" is OK to some. Luigizanasi06:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
3 Baruch
Thanks for improving 3 Baruch. Do you have a source for your changes, or did you simply use the source text? If you have a reference, please add it. Thanks. KI03:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Salvation
I couldn't figure out why you cited Matthew 6:13 in your earlier edit. I agree that verses 14-15 make more sense. Note that the person who originally wrote that line might have been referring to verse 12, since he or she was under the impression that the teaching was in the Lord's Prayer. However, it might be a little better with the verses that you added in your second edit. My concern was that no statement be made to the effect that forgiveness of sins is universally believed to be more a function of works than of grace. If someone were to assert that Eastern Christianity espouses such a view, then it would be a legitimate report of data, in the event that it were true. However, if the statement is written in a way that takes a position on the issue in general, saying that it is a fact that the Jesus taught works over grace, then I don't think it's quite neutral. Your wording comes close to such a suggestion. Is that what you want it to do? Projection7006:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who originally wrote it, and I was referring to verses 14 and 15, not to the Lord's Prayer. My intention is to use the Eastern Christianity section to strictly describe the beliefs of Eastern Christianity. SInce it is a section with the Heading "Eastern Christianity", there is no need to stick three apologies into every sentence explaining that this is a teaching of Eastern Christianity. People who do not understand Eastern Christianity should leave the wording / explanation in this section alone, and worry themselves about sections they are more familiar with, rather than attempt to speak on behalf of something they are not familiar with. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 07:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Although you originally wrote it, it was confusing when you subsequently interjected Matthew 6:12 from the Lord's Prayer. Why did you do that? Your point on article or sectional context is good. In the case of your Eastern Christianity edit, is not entirely clear to a reader, from the way the statement is worded, that the writer's intent is to contextualize it by means of the section heading. Rather, it appears that the writer believes and is suggesting that there is such a teaching in the Bible. Your edit summary also gives an impression that you espouse this view and are seizing the opportunity presented by the context to propound it in Misplaced Pages. The way you have written the statement does not have the appearance of being neutral, even though it is under a contextual heading. Projection7017:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who added the "Lord's Prayer" bit, whoever did that totally confused the situation. As for "is there such a teaching in the Bible?", what Matt 6:14-15 says is this:
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
If you have basic reading comprehension skills, the meaning is not too hard to figure out. It's kind of pointless to argue whether or not the Bible actually says that or not. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not think it is universally agreed that what the passage teaches is as simplistic as you view it to be. Your belief that it so clearly says exactly what you state that it does is what casts your edits into inconsistency with the rest of the paragraph's level of neutrality. The interest in religion that you demonstrate suggests that you should already recognize the nature of this problem. Surely you know that the question of what a given Bible verse or passage means is considered differently by theologians in light of their varying views of the entire biblical message. The nuances of the biblical message as a whole are widely disputed, and this bears consequenses for verses that otherwise might seem unequivocal, such as Matthew 6:14-15. This is why there is a perilous tendency to stray from neutrality when attempting to paraphrase a biblical passage by stating what it "actually says," as you put it.
The wording that you have chosen for your paraphrase of Matthew 6:14-15, referring to "the teaching in the Gospels attributed to Jesus, that as a prerequisite for a person's sins to be forgiven, something is definitely required of that person," is not uncontroversial. Yes, the verses are attributed to Jesus, but "the teaching" that you impose upon those verses is not universally accepted as you have worded it. It is a paraphrase, whether it be by specific Eastern theologians or by exponents of your own belief system, and as such should be more clearly qualified as originating from a specific source than it currently is. Projection7000:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. Such a clear, unambiguous teaching from the words attributed to Christ Himself found in the Gospel, that something is required (our forgiving others) as a prerequisite for our own finding forgiveness from the Heavenly Father, is bound to be unpopular with those teachers who teach the exact opposite of what Christ taught - that it is not necessary to forgive others, but we can still expect automatic forgiveness from God no matter what, as if he was beholden to us mortals. Obviously, these verses present a problem to this ideology, because they state the exact opposite - that forgiveness is NOT unconditional, but is plainly conditional on our own actions, it's being conditional is evidenced by the appearance of an IF clause (if you know of another interpretation of Matt 6:14-15, I'd love to hear it). However, this is not an isolated verse, but is thoroughly consistent with the rest of Christ's teachings, for example he teaches that the slave who would not forgive $20 after he was forgiven $100 is due to be punished. He also teaches that many other people will be punished for not following and practising the things he taught and comanded. According to him in the Gospel, these are the ones who think it is enough simply to call out 'O Lord, O Lord', but do not forgive their neighbour, and so will be divided with the goats and not the sheep on Judgement Day for the way they have mistreated God's children. Obviously, the only response to this that the "Everyone is automatically forgiven no matter what, because God is a pushover, so just do whatever feels good" crowd can come up with, is to try to downplay the actual teaching of Christ, and actually allow everything he taught to be thrown right out of the window, replacing it instead with grand-sounding doctrines like "Grace" -- which is something that Jesus in the Gospel never once talks about. In their view, all you need is this "grace" -- although if Jesus didn't mention it, they aren't really counting on a promise from Jesus, but rather on someone else who promised them a reward for sin. So, can they really "count on" this entity who actually promises them a reward for sin? Or are they being deceived by the Father of Lies? That is a deep theological question. My paraphrase in the Eastern Christianity section is exactly what it purports to be: It accurately expresses the Eastern understanding of Matt 6:14-15. But if the paraphrase is proving to contentious, the best solution will be to simply quote the verses directly and let the reader decide what they are saying with regard to the promise of forgiveness and Salvation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Four points:
1) Your solution to replace the paraphrase with the straight text a good one. It resolves our editorial contention.
2) Your grievances with Christians and nominal Christians who abuse the grace of Jesus for their own licentiousness, as if it were a license to sin, are absolutely commendable and well-founded in scripture. Romans 6:1-2: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" James 2:20: "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" No good works means no real faith; no faith means no grace. Jude 1:4: "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."
3) Your assertion that grace is inconstent with "the actual teaching of Christ" is puzzling. Unless you pick and choose what to believe and reject from the Bible, then I do not know how you would reject the paramount importance of grace.
Luke 2:40: And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
John 1:17: For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 8:9: For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
Romans 5:20: Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 5:2: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
John 1:14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:16: And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Acts 15:11: But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Acts 20:24: But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
Romans 3:25-27: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 6:14: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
4) This is how Matthew 6:12 and 14-15 corresponds with the salvation of grace through exclusive faith in Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 9:8 reads, "And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:" Jesus is saying in Matthew 6 that one will only be forgiven for one's trespasses by the Father if one does what is impossible to do apart from the grace that one must first receive, by vesting one's faith in Jesus as the Messiah, one's exclusive Lord and savior. It is only by the supernatural power with which one is then endowed through the Holy Spirit that a man or woman can possibly forgive others their trespasses to the exhaustive degree required by a holy God. So, while Jesus details in Matthew 6 some of the aspects of salvation that invite the Father's forgiveness, namely the thorough forgiveness of others, there remains only one thing one must do that brings salvation, and that is an act of the heart:
Acts 16:29-31: "Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
Romans 10:9: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
While it is impossible to be saved by any other actions, nobody is saved by the "easy-believism" so rampant today that involves the lipservice of a quick prayer, or a sprinkle/dunk with H2O, or a bunch of rites and rituals effecting appearances of belief. If someone truly believes and is saved through God's grace, then that person will be enabled to do in the Spirit the works that God requires, works that a fallen creation cannot do any other way.
Codex, can you please go here, and see if you feel like leaving a short comment there?; it is very important to me. ThanksZmmz09:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Codex, I gratful that you left a comment on that page on my behalf, but please be kind enough to move your comments here, by today if possible, because they want it to be submitted in this page. Thank you so muchZmmz18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Codex, when I said your list gave no concrete information, what was really bothering me was the way it was presented - a bare list. If you could turn it into a prose sentence or paragraph I'd feel much happier. (But I'd also like to see some judgement given regarding the meaning of the parallels, including explanations for other than the memory-of-a-real-event one). Hope this explains my earlier revert. PiCo00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't really "my" list, someone else had added it - and I know it wasn't really presented or formatted correctly, and needs to be... I just thought blanking it out entirely was a little overboard, especially with the reason given being "no concrete information", it seemed to me that it certainly was "information", just information in a very raw form... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
ok I'm not really in a Misplaced Pages mindframe right now and will leave it alone.
I really liked the old one (http://flickr.com/photos/babasteve/3395571/). The shadow was part of what made the photograph so good. The person who took the photo is actually a professional photographer, and the image has been included in many collections honoring good photos. Would you mind if I restored it or replaced it with a less shadowy image? I just think that the new one doesn't look as good (he looks too modern or something).
Hey Codex, you're welcome, as regards the single sentence addition I put in at Sun. I don't usually edit science articles since I have no expertise in those fields, although one of the things I intensely desire is to become a polymath. What prompted me to do so was after hearing a lecture at my soon-to-be alma mater about the challenges of confronting a post-petroleum world. The speaker mentioned the sun was the source of all energy on this planet (a pretty phenomenal fact in itself; how often do you look-- indirectly, of course-- at the sun and recognize its power over human life?). He mentioned wind, so, after seeing that the article didn't mentioned that, I went over to the article on wind and applied what I learned there to the sun article.
Anyway this response is getting kind of silly in its long-windedness. I wish you the best of eudaimonia. --Matthew06:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Do you know anything about making a user page look stylish? If so, feel free to edit my user page.
Phoenicia
Hello Codex. My apologies for the edits to the Phoenicia external links section, which I noticed you adjusted. I put them in there because I noticed that the links provided are very biased and are not academically accredited. I thought that they would be very misleading for people wanting to learn more about the Phoenicians. Eitherway I see you point, apologies again, but I would like for someone to review those links a second time. They're a little bit controversial and one of them swung dangerously toward a more right-wing Falangist agenda. All the best, Euganeo01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Princess Romanework
Hello Codex Sinaiticus,
I hope you do not think I have been ignoring you over the past months by not returning your messages. It is just that I have been trying to figure out this Misplaced Pages thing in the middle of an extremely busy schedule.
About H.I.H. Princess Romanework Haile Selassie. I am not sure what your contacts are with the Imperial family of Ethiopia, but I urge you to ask them, or ask some other source you trust such as Professor Pankhurst whether or not Her Imperial Highness was not the fully aknowledged daughter of Emperor Haile Selassie. I am distantly related to the late Princess's husband, Dejazmatch Beyene Merid, who was a great hero of the struggle agianst fascist Italy, during which he gave his life. My great-grandmother used to visit the Princess while she was imprissoned in Addis Ababa shortly before she was shipped off to Italy and her death, and used to weep when she remembered the suffering of this daughter of our ancient Imperial House. I myself am witness to the deep grief openly displayed by her late Imperial Highness Princess Tenagnework upon the death of Dejazmatch Merid Beyene, the son of Princess Romanework, in 1989, and am witness to the fact that the entire Imperial family went into full mourning for a year for this grandson of Emperor Haile Selassie. The questioning of the Princess' paternity on a public forum such as Misplaced Pages is causing seriously hurt feelings in certian quarters, and questions are being raised that this is being done deliberately and may even cause some serious misunderstandings. I urge you to verify that the Princess is indeed the daughter of His Imperial Majesty, and then please refrain from putting the word "alleged" before the word daughter.
Hi codex, I've just made major edit in the lead, history and formation of chinese characters and i'll trying to make more edit in another sectino. but from time to time, i can still see grammatical mistakes in the page. Could you help us improve it? Thanks! --Yau17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Having just seen your recent addition talking of the unity of this book, it would only be reasonable to add similar types of citations here as with the two talking of seperate sources. I have no axe to grid by the way. :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk)12:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Scythians
I won't take it upon myself to correct your user page :) but note that the Parthians were not 'a branch of the Scythians'; the major division of the Iranian languages is between "eastern" and "western" Iranian (historically more properly "northern" and "southern"). The Scythians belong to the "eastern" branch (green), while the Parthians belong to the "western" branch (red). The green and red areas together show the spread of the Iranian languages in the 1st c. BC, although of course many other languages remained spoken in some areas (such as Caucasian, Semitic and Turkic languages as well as Indo-Aryan in India and Armenian in Anatolia) dab(ᛏ)14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism?
I have been accused of vandalism before. The first "vandlism" was deleting messages like "U r all fuxorz11!!" from Yu-Gi-Oh! Gx's section.
This time it's for deleting something that seemed rather out of place and rather questionable.
I'm beginning to find this "vandal report" system rather questionable...
Pocahontas's secret name
Why did you decribe Motoaka / Amonute as Pocahontas's "secret name"? As I understand it, these were her proper names, as opposed to the nickname Pocahontas, but they can't have been very 'secret' if the English knew them. But maybe you know something I don't? The Singing Badger19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
BC/AD vs BCE/CE debate
Hi, Codex! I think I might like to call myself Codex Vaticanus as a thought-provoking web persona. But all levity aside, please see my comments on the as if you haven't looked there recently. We could consider BCE/CE to be "Before Christ's Era/Christ's Era! It is all in how we look at it. I don't want to make you angrier than I guess you may be, but consensus building is helpful when we can do it. Take care, --Drboisclair19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have had differences on Misplaced Pages too, very recently
Sometimes it is frustrating when you lose. I have lost a battle recently over the inclusion of Martin Luther in the "Antisemitic people" category. I don't think that he was an "antisemitic person" but, evidently, there is a large body of contemporary authors both Christian and Jewish, who think he was. I was on the verge of an edit war, but I guess I can live with it. I'm not happy about it, but perhaps I can do more to disseminate information about Luther's legacy by compromising about it. I can see how people get tired of "inclusive language", etc., but I guess it is part of living in a diverse world. The best advice is never to feel threatened by someone else, even if they think differently from yourself. I have learned that it keeps my blood pressure in check. Thanks for your message. --Drboisclair20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Ownership
I too was recently surprised to encounter DreamGuy's histrionic abuse over at Spring Heeled Jack - another article he seems to think he owns, and from which he is attempting to expunge anything he doesn't like. His modus operandi is so beyond the pale I'm guessing he's some sort of troll. Would you support an RfC to try to reign him in ? --Centauri13:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your response. It will likely take me some time to compile the necessary evidence in the proper manner, but there does seem to be a whole lot of it, so it's more a case of picking the most egregious examples. I'm well aware tht Misplaced Pages is no democracy, which is all the more reason to knock abusive editors on the head as quickly and cleanly as possible. Frankly I don't care if this person donated a million dollars and has the blessing of the pope - his behaviour is right off the scale and it needs to be addressed. --Centauri05:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we may have him! He appears to be using a sockpuppet to subvert the 3RR. Take a look at the edit history of Victrix. Same articles, same abuse, same edit description "essays", same words in edit descriptions, same misinterpretation of WP policies. If you know of any other editors who have been the subject of his intimidation, let me know. I think we have a very strong case here. --Centauri10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried to start an RfC on DreamGuy and found that someone else had already beaten me to it. It seems he's been making quite a habit of abusing people. You can visit here to add your support if you wish. --Centauri11:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
First Nations
I note your objection to the objection of the term "First Nations". By law, "First Nations" are merely a body of domestic ethnic minorities in Canada. They have no standing under International Law, nor do they have any rights enshrined in the Canada Constitution Act, 1982, Section 25, and 35, and they have no recourse to appeal to the UN, except as domestic ethnic minorities.
That is the reason for the contreversy over the term. A lot of people believe they are doing Indigenous people a big favour when they use the term "First Nations" -- but what it actually does is continue to develop the assimilationist and extinguishment of Aboriginal Rights and Aboriginal Land Title agenda of the Federal Government. I understand that people mean well by the term, but believe me, it's not helping. Thanks -- Somena.
On Royalty title in Selassie article
Codex, I believe you're misreading the MOS regarding use of honourifics. The relevant portions are:
Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.
An example of such discussion would be the inclusion of a special graphic known as an infobox, giving the official, spoken and alternative versions of a style for a member of a royal family or pope, would be included in the article. (ex. Template:Infobox UKkingstyles)
I believe you may not have read the second portion -- it suggests that what is meant is that the article does not "use" the honourific, it merely notes that it can apply to that person. I have taken the liberty of reverting your most recent change, although if you wish to discuss this further, and revert it again, I don't intend to revert it again until we sort this out. Take care. --Improv23:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I presume you refer specifically to:
3) Styles shall not be used to open articles on royalty and popes. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI shall not begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI . . . " nor the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria . . ." They should, however, be discussed in the article proper.
However, this still uses the term "discussed", which is, like the above, still clarified to mean "mentioned", not "used". I am not trying to attack anyone -- if you recall, we've worked together a few times on this article and others to keep people who are interested in smearing Rastas from doing so in the article. I only bring this up because the article should also not be a place of veneration (or expression of reverence), and I think that this point is pertinent to that. Could you take another look at the MOS and explain your reading of it? I still believe that my proposed phrasing of the page is more in line with the MOS is, although I am, of course, open discussion on the point. --Improv23:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That may be true, but the English article is not meant to be a translation of the Amharic article, and it should not stand out as following different rules than other articles (which is part of what I'm concerned about). --Improv01:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Codex, you going to respond? I still think that the honourific should not be used in that article. --Improv17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe calling someone "King Fnord" is different than "His Majesty Fnord" (or inclusion of "pbuh" after mentioning of prophets), in that the first documents a position, and the second is part of a ritualised show of respect. By and large, the first is seen as acceptable on Misplaced Pages, and the second is not (although mentioning that there is a custom is noted). This is based on a simple reading of the MOS. I am not singling out this article except by nature that I noticed an irregularity that I want to fix. If there are other articles that are similarly irregular, I would like to see them fixed as well. Read the MOS -- it's pretty clear. --Improv21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The page which you have been asking for is the Biography part of the MOS that we've been discussion. I again quote the following:
Styles shall not be used to open articles on royalty and popes. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI shall not begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI . . . " nor the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria . . ." They should, however, be discussed in the article proper.
An example of such discussion would be the inclusion of a special graphic known as an infobox, giving the official, spoken and alternative versions of a style for a member of a royal family or pope, would be included in the article. (ex. Template:Infobox UKkingstyles)
What does this mean? It means that styles are meant to be discussed (but not used) in the article, and that that discussion should list the style along with all of its alternate forms, perhaps in a userbox.
No, I disagree with your interpretation of the MOS; it does not mean that, nor does it say that, and as I have pointed out, there is literally NOTHING in the above preventing the use of honorifics for royalty in the body of this article. I am starting to wonder about your level of reading skills to be able to "read" policies that simply aren't there. I just don't understand exactly why you have to do this, and am really beginning to wonder if you are on some sort of crusade in this particular case. All articles on Royal Lines of Succession for example use the honorific, as is 100% proper and allowwed by policy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What do those sections mean to you? I am not on a crusade, I am aiming for consistent application of the way things work. I've done the work to bring up specific lines in policy that support my position, and brought up examples as well. If you still disagree, how about you do the same? --Improv18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
They mean just what they say: The honorifics are not used in the lead intro sentence of a biographical article about royalty. They absolutely do not say they cannot be used elsewhere. And again, for a prominent example, the Lines of Succession series all use honorifics, and I mean they USE them, not "discuss" them. If you were to go around to all of those articles and try to apply your unwritten policy there, you would meet with a ton of opposition, and rightly so, because wikipedia DOES use honorifics. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that works. I think that Misplaced Pages should not use honourifics, and in fact still think that the MOS at least implies that they should not be used, but if there's enough precedent, I won't bother with the individual cases. At some point I may attempt to clarify the MOS in order to provide impetus to have them removed sidewide, but for now I'll consider the matter closed with regards to this article. Thanks for the pointer. --Improv23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The only person "date-warring" is you. I repeat, I made the article consistent. If you think that I should have made it consistent in the other directio, raise the issue for discussion at the Talk page — don't just revert. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that you check my edit rather more carefully. Note that, unlike you, I have taken this issue to the Talk page, where it should be discussed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my informal language first of all I am pretty tired so I ll write quick and direct. I am from Turkey but for 6 months I am living in Italy for my studies. I know some stuff about Turkic people, Celts and N.Americans. 3 months ago I read an article in news paper, it was actually a memorail thing. I was about a Celt man living on Toros Mountains aorund the south of Anatolia. He calls himself Kelteri and tells the writer the story of Kelts in Anatolia. According to the guy they came here due to Crusades. "they were skilled warriors they were sent down there to fight. In one of the campaings which was one the holy week of fertility they encountered Turks on the way. Yet they were preparing some rituals secretly not to be punished by Muslim Seljuk Turks. The ritual was nearly the same as the Kelt one. They found out many similarities and Kelts decided to stop fighting with Turks and live in the region. After some time the English came and killed most of the Kelts. Some remained like me. But there are not many Kelteri as it used to be."Also I know some N.American words that are same in Turkish like tepe (hill), it (dog).(cantikadam11:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
Monatnism and AD
Hello. It seems you are not understanding the reason behind my removal of AD from the text in Montantism article. I have nothing against AD/BC, and infact I exclusively use them in my articles. The "problem" is that all the years and centuries in the article are AD, so there is no need to specificate them. That's why I marked my edits as "rm redundant AD". Will you remove it?--Panairjdde11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring my comment and keepeing on reverting? You do not own the article, you are obliged to discuss the points you do not like, not just reverting them. Answer my remark.--Panairjdde09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Ethiopia
You're right Feqade/Codex. Please make the appropriate subsection when you can (I'll try to get to it if not) so that we can begin discussion. Also, note that I've created a Book of Aksum article, which I thought you might be interested in helping expand. — ዮም(Yom) | contribs • Talk • E06:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
???
Can you please change your signature? It confuses people with Firefox because it means that they don't have a language pack when they see all ???? --mboverload@04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No. This font (GF Zemen Unicode) is used throughout this wikipedia for Ethiopic languages; it is a simple matter for anyone to find and download the font for free, if they really want to see it instead of ???. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Date warring over multiple articles
Please stop edit warring. Warring over such trivialmatter is not only ridiculous, but harmful to the encyclopedia. Both you and Panairjdde have been uncivil in this. I'd advise you to stop thewarrng at least until the matter can be settled through discussion. Maybe mediation would be a good idea? Circeus22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias.
Good: "Hey, Bob, could you tell me what you think about this discussion? I think your input could help"
I am using the exact copy from the survey guideline in order not to get accused/blocked for recruiting. Could you please check the discussion there, Bob?
The discussion where? What is this about? This seems like good general advice, but I'm not sure if it pertains to a specific instance. Are you surveying me, or asking me to check Talk:Caron? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I simply run out of names. Did not mean to insult anyone, particulary my old "friend" CS. Take it as an homage.
P.S. what does bane mean?
dating and the MoS
In an edit summary for the Epistle of Jude, you said to me But 1) AD is explicitly allowed, and 2) Removing it (a la color / colour) is explicitly DISallowed. Stop it. And I feel that we have a completely different understanding of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) guidelines. What is specifically DIS allowed is: When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. The two styles they are talking about are CE vs. AD. I did not change the AD to CE, so I did not break any policy. In fact, I followed the guideline stated on the same page: Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range. Let me repeat that "NORMALLY you should use PLAIN NUMBERS for YEARS... BUT when events SPAN the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range". This number (70) does not SPAN the start of AD/CE, so I used a plain number. The only place AD or CE is to be used is in ranges of dates. I don't see how I am interpreting this guideline incorrectly, and I do not see how my edits are harmful or against policy. I understand that a few editors feel that dates in the single, double, and somtimes tripple digits are confusing to users. However, this concern has not entered the guideline yet. I feel that getting rid of both AD and CE is helpful because it avoids edit warring regarding which format to use in articles. The guideline says it isn't necessary, and wikilinking the year makes it clear for the confused users. So until the guideline is changed, I wish you'd respect current policy and stop reverting my edits that are per the guidelines. Thank you.--Andrew c15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Lies
You are a liar. No such things as a compromise exist. What Andrew proposed was to wait to see if those forms were allowed. Shame on you.--AlessioMinieri02:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
AD in dates
Hi, you made an edit to Montanism in which you added "AD" after "2nd century". You quoted the style guide saying this is appropriate, however as I stated on Talk:Montanism the style guide appears to say the exact opposite (that years in AD should omit the "AD"). Can you explain what your reasoning is for this edit? Thanks. Fagstein07:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The reasoning has been explained by myself and others ad infinitum, so many times that I am a bit sick of being asked to explain it yet again. It's hard to believe you have missed all of the repeated explanation that has been going on, and that this isn't a joke. Basically, your interpretation of MOS, that AD should always be omitted, is far too narrow; the common sense intent is clearly to state that both AD and CE are equally "acceptable", and that going around articles switching from one accepted style to another, like Panairjdde did by starting all this, is unacceptable. This all started at Montanism, where he had no contribution to the article myself and other editors have authored whatsoever, other than to drop in and summarily inform that AD was "not allowed", which it most certainly is, and it's normal English writing to use it in this case. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you point to some centralized discussion that I've missed on this issue? Talk:Montanism appeared to resolve it. As much as your idea of common sense is important, it still contradicts the style guide. I might suggest having that changed before imposing your common sense on articles without discussing them on Talk pages. Thanks. Fagstein19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi
I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages and am having a tough time contributing. I have listed reliable sources along with objective content, only to have it altered to those who promote "heresay".
My content on Saint Paul was COMPLETELY altered because it does reflect well with some christian fundamentalists. This is not grounds for alteration. Please help me as I cannot keep track of all the various edits. I am listing numerous sources and pulling from professors in the field, this still is not good enough to some simply because individual posters think it conflicts with "acts".
You are right, unfortunately what "others can live with" entails altering accurate information about Paul! Paul never knew Jesus! His first letter was intended to recruit christians who were dying, they were worried that Jesus wouldn't rise from the dead and return the "Kingdom of God" soon enough!
You can see how this information conflicts with those who interpret history from scripture.
This is not good news for them, but that is not my interest.
I see you fequently browse wikipedia, if you could help keep track of the information that is erased or altered due to biases i would appreciate it.
Biblical118:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Christianity history
Look Codex,
Galerius issued an edict of toleration and died. Maximinus Daia continued the persecution. So, Galerius' edict was not very effective. Anyway, you are bloating a subclause - the sentence in question is not about who legalized Chr. when and where but what happened after the legalization.
Constantine did legalize Christianity (together with Licinius) and is rightfully known for it.
The pentarchy was not existant before Chalcedon. Nicaea mentioned three sees with primatial right: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. 1st Constantinople (381) added Constantinople, for which Chalcedon claimed equaliy with Rome. Chalcedon also elevated Jerusalem to a Patriarchate. The resulting pentarchy was first mentioned in the Codex Justinianus.
This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Thank you,
This message delivered: 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC).
Haile Selassie's titles
Are you sure that the proper spelling is Mo'a? I'm certain that the verb in Ge'ez preserves the "w." E.g., in the Biblical passage "bizūḫān yimaw'i ." What do you think about this? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's the commonly used spelling, but is it the correct transliteration is what I'm asking. In Ge'ez was it Maw'a (i.e. Mew'a), or was it always written as Mo'a? See here (PDF of Munro-Hay's Aksum), and look on page 74, where you can see an Aksumite coin saying (in Ge'ez), "By this Cross you will conquer," and it says in unvocalized Ge'ez BMSQLT BZTMWʼ (i.e., something like ba masqal(t?) bazatamaw'i). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You have a good point. But actually relating the Medes (the three wise men) (Magians) to Hungarian Magyar is on the border of real insanity. And by the way the information goes against Misplaced Pages's policy of NOR. That actual part of the article which I deleted is just cut & pasted from a hungarian nationalist site: . As you can see the article has no references and is written by a non-specialist (do a search on Fred Hamori and he will claim every ancient language to be related to Hungarian). I am just making sure the scholarly opinion on Medes is reflected in the article. --Ali doostzadeh19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much
Codex, thank you so much for putting back what i entered into the article, which was repeatedly deleted by Yom, whom i do not agree with at all. If you know more information about the theory regarding the Sabean/influence on Ethiopia, we can perhaps add it to the history of Ethiopia. All the best to you.
Cluckbang01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang
Semitic
I have reverted your revert of my edit regarding Sheba. We both know each other's position on the issue, but I assure you that my edit has nothing to do with it. The sentence in question is about the origin of Semitic languages and their homeland, which really has absolutely nothing to do with Sheba, especially since the latter wasn't established anywhere near the time-frame of proto-Semitic (the Akkadian Empire in the mid to late 3rd millenium BC, for instance, is still to late to say it is the homeland of Semitic languages). So you see, Sheba really isn't relevant for that sentence. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
CS, this really has nothing to do with my POV. Why can't you accept that a 1st millenium BC kingdom has nothing to do with the decision of linguists to consider Ethiopia as a possible home for proto-Semitic? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello CS please follow protocal and discuss the edits of the freewill article on the talkpage. Rather then cause a revert war.
Thanks
LoveMonkey03:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Turkey Mountain article confusion
Hello. I was reading your article on Turkey Mountain and realized that the fourth paragraph ("Three symbols....) as written seems to have no meaning. I think some words got left out. Because of the confusion, the next paragraph is pretty meaningless, too. I would have tidied it up if I had known what you were getting at. You might want to look at it at your convenience. --Sean Lotz06:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
megalommatis
CS, do you realize Yom is taking out a source (Megalommatis) because he simply thinks hes not legible and that the man is a psycho, could you please convince him to put back that reference onto the article? Heres some info about Megalommatis. Please write back and tell me what you think Take care
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-4-2005-74197.aspCluckbang12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang
The Promise Key at August 3
Hello. I see that you reverted the edits that I removed () by Skanking. I done this because the user is a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages. Just a heads up on why I done so; I apologise for the sake of the article. Regards, Iolakana| 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit of Ante Christum Natum article
You recently edited the article Ante Christum Natum to add material about Dionysus Exiguus]]. I have read about him in connection with preparing for the year 2000 computer crisis that never happened, and was wondering if you have any citation for the information you added. --Gerry Ashton22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked for breaking the Three revert rule on Christianity. You commited four or more reverts on that article within a period of around twenty four hours. This block is not a reflection on those edits themselves, but on the pattern of edits. The three revert rule is designed to stop such edit wars. Please continue to discuss matters on the Talk:Christianity page when you return. --Robdurbar22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Egyptian Sources for borders of Canaan
I'm having difficulty finding the Egyptian texts that evidence Egypt's definition of the borders of Canaan. (Even the scholarly literature appears to take a lot of presumptions for granted, and/or casually use an anachronistic definition of the term "Canaan". Can you cite which Egyptian texts clearly evidence the Egyptian's borders for Canaan? For example, you specified the Egyptian's believed the borders of Canaan began at the "Brook of Egypt": which Egyptian text uses the word "Brook of Egypt" to describe Canaan? --Haldrik22:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any reason to call it 'anachronistic'... Only because that is still the current general presumption, but I admit I wouldn't be able to reference any Egyptian texts that specify it... I don't know of any other name they would have used for the area west of the Jordan Valley (as most scholars interpret it) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ebionite Talk Page surpression
Shalom Sinaiticus,
I have been meaning to ask you about the Sinaiticus
codex for some time but have not got around to it till now. Maybe the higher cause of the edit was for you to question it and me see your question when i went to look at the edit history of the talk page.
I know the real reason why it suddenly vanished you have to eather go to the archived talk section and read my responce to Loremaster asking me to assume good faith Or read the responce from my talk page. That was first posted on Loremasters talk page and soon after that Loremaster and OvadYah excanged some type of chat but its hard to tell looking at the history. Shortly after that the majority of the talk page was buried almost as if it was a lost Gosple.LOL
Sorry about that. It's just that a.) in the eyes of the law he was a murderer, and was convicted as such, and b.) (more importantly) it was four-bloody-thirty in the morning when I finished the damned article and I was beginning not to see straight. I suspect, given time, I might have tried to link him with the Kennedy assassination as well :). In any event, I think the reworking is about as fair as the historical record's ever going to get on the case. --AlbertHerring17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ethiopian Orthodox Church Articles
I know you know a lot about the Church, so do you want to help out in writing articles on barious monks, churches, monastaries, gadlat, dirsanat, etc.? I haven't yet started, but I'm thinking of creating a list of needed church-related articles from the Encylopaedia Aethiopica (the first two volumes) to get started (there's already a list for monasteries and churches at WikiProject Ethiopia). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi I am glad you received the article.. I think in the Agathyrsi article we should mention the conjectures (Britannica 1911 and Thompson and etc..) and then from there move it into the akatziri article. --alidoostzadeh00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A couple of editors are of the opinion that Abraham was a Polygamist, so they have added Cat:Polygamist. I have doubts as to the validity of this classification. I think this was more a 'rent-a-womb' scheme than a marriage to Hagar. Do you have an opinion? I wonder if this is a LDS / Mormon attempt to add respectability to Polygamy? 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Canaan
"tag - Article now states that only Israelites included area of modern Israel in Canaan; this is wrong and Original Research"
I did not in any way mean to imply this. Please make any correction to text in the article you find misleading. My intention was to contrast the biblical meaning of the word "Canaan" which corresponds to Lebanon and the south including Israel, verses the Egyptian word which corresponds to Lebanon and the north including Syria. Feel free to make this clearer.--Haldrik14:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
But that isn't the case... The Egyptian word also included modern Israel as far as we know... (See Retenu) You must cite a scholar who has ever suggested what you are saying, in order for it not to be Original Research... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Ethiopian calendar, you said that the beginning of years do not coincide with the Coptic ones. What do you mean by this? Don't both start on September 11th (12 on leap years) Gregorian and August 29th (30 on leap years) Julian? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I ever said this; there must be some kind of misunderstanding... Of course the first day of the year is the same in both... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
comment
I'm not a native speaker in English, what i mean is that if there exits a probability, this means no certainty (no definite answer).
Sometimes i have a difficulty of expressing myself cause of the language barrier. Is there a logical problem in English with that
sentence apart from i wrote here. e104421
Hi, Not only there exist irrelevent and meaningless statements in the wikipedia articles, but also POV arguments. Especially, the linguistics and history related articles does not reflect objective scientific information. Everbody tries to put their own arguments. When you google, wikipedia comes the first. If the article is disputed, this causes misleading, unless the reader is curious to search the other sources. I wonder whether it is possible to make the articles both neutral and comprehensive in the future. 7 September 2006 (UTC) 14:10 e104421
Míkmaq orthography
Codex, I wish you hadn't just moved that back. We'd had a discussion about Míkmaq orthography and I have moved Mi'kmaq language to Míkmaq language. The form with i-apostrophe is a fall back for the formal Francis-Smith orthography i-acute, and I have been updating articles to reflect the use of the formal orthography. Evertype20:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Codex, I'm not trying to suppress anything. As I said in my comment, I ergard that para as non-encyclopiac material. My attitude is that this section is about the DH, and should simply set out the DH case - that paragraph is arguing a counter-case, which may or may not be correct, but which certainly isn't the DH case. It's the differeence between an encyclopedia article, which merely explains, and a personalised article, whether in a scholarly journal or a Sunday magazine, which sets out an argument. I actually try hard to be non-partisan - I gave considerable space in the Noah's Ark article to the literalist position, which as you no doubt gather I don't agree with, and also to the search for Noah's ark, which I personally ergard as a waste of time and money, simply because these positions are important and need to be persented - not argued, just presented. PiCo03:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
3RR warning
You've reverted me 3 times now, and I have reverted you 3 times. Both of us are in danger of breaching WP:3RR. No more reverts for 24 hours please.
Really, why don't you just fix the tense and add a section on contemporary travelling? Why are you intent on restoring the irrelevant material about NZ?
Hey there. I am not particularly enamored with any particular spelling of Mikmaq. I am more particularly concerned with having consistent spelling in the BODY of the wikipedia. I was leaning towards using the francis orthography but a really good argument has been made that that would be leading the trend rather than reporting on it. The question is, what is the generally accepted English language word for Mikmaq.
I think a good argument can be made for MicMac. Also Mikmaq. Also M'ikmaq. As discussed on the Mikmaq language page, we have a number of issues here 1) regional phonetic spellings in the LATIN alphabet (so, probably, English AND French) on different reservations are different 2) that might not matter, as the Germans do not call themselves Germans, but we still call them Germans in English, not Deutches or whatever it is in their native language 3) the English spelling is in transition as the stupid Euros are finally accepting that their original anglisizations are so far off the actual language that they are not particularly correct.
Most people under 40/45 seem to want to use some version of Mikmaq not MicMac. This is it is a confusing situation for us to report on because it is confusing in real life. Bottom line though is we are an encyclopedia and we have to find a framework to both clearly represent the confusion and why there is confusion, and ALSO try and find some kind of common spelling that we can use in all the Mikmaq related articles so that we do not have different spellings for the same things on different pages (ie: Migmagi, Gipuktug, etc). WayeMason11:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, CS. On the revert of Aramaic and Hebrew and deletion of the explanation for my Edit later in the article, your Edit summary has an asserted premise unsupported by (Towner, 1993, p. 150), which I cited. It is a standard reference, summarizing the current state of the literature, including the point I made. Another source, which cites the same point as my edit is Hartman and Di Lella (1990, p. 408), added to References. It also summarizes rather than being original research. You cite no source for overriding my source. I believe that you would not have deleted if you had consulted either source or indeed tried to deal with the otherwise anomalous Aramaisms in the Hebrew text (easily explained if the text was translated from Aramaic, difficult to explain otherwise) referred in the the explanation you deleted. I'd appreciate your responding or re-editing. Thx. Thomasmeeks00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Codex, you've broken 3RR at Mi'kmaq language. Please don't do it again, and don't insult other users. Why don't you just explain your opinion at the talk page? You could clear this up simply by providing sources for your assertions about the correct spelling.--Cúchullain/c16:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
