User talk:Warshy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:17, 3 April 2011 editRoseclearfield (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,508 edits →Ferdinand de Saussure: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:32, 10 December 2024 edit undoMusikBot II (talk \| contribs)Bots, Interface administrators, Administrators103,077 edits Notification that access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed due to inactivity
(523 intermediate revisions by 89 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Archives\|search=no\|
	'''Welcome!'''
			* ]
			* ]
			}}

	Hello, and ] to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also ].
	I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the ], add a question to the ] or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

	] 06:05, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

	Thank you for the welcome and for the tips, Essjay. I am on a learning curve regarding how to publish stuff here, but I'm making some progress. I've figured out already at least one of the ways to sign a new page, such as ] 15:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
	Thanks again.

	== You cannot reword a quoted document ==

	You cannot because it doesn't conform to Misplaced Pages style or because you don't like the wording! - ] \| ] 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

	== Explanation to Mr. Mabel ==

	I wasn't trying to reword the document. I was trying to correct a link that was incorrect. There was no Misplaced Pages page about the Viaux coup attempt the link alluded to. Instead, the link was pointing to the Rene Schneider page, where the Viaux coup attempt was also mentioned, with a material to an existing Misplaced Pages page about Robert Viaux.

			== Precious anniversary ==
	What I didn't know how to do, and what you have now done in correcting my misguided attempt at correction, is to make the Wikilink name, that points to a different page, not appear in the reading text of the page. You then later explained to me what you had done, which I didn't know how to do, in the following manner:
			{{User QAIbox/auto\|years=Nine}} --] (]) 08:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

			:Thank you so much Gerda! Nine years is quite some time. ] ] 15:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
	"Wikilinks have two parts: the display text and the target. When the
			:Congratulations on the anniversary! ] (]) 01:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	two parts are identical, you just use the one piece of content (e.g.
	]). If, however, you want to display text that differs from the target,
	you do it like this: ]. That will display visibly as
	just "Danton", but will link the same place. This is also very useful when
	referencing a section of an article, thus
	]."

			== Lee Harvey Oswald ==
	Thanks for the explanation. Now I know how to do it, and hopefully, someone else reading this, will not fall into the same wiki "trap."] 12:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

			I think I fixed the problems! I'm sorry that before I accidentally cut part off. I added a reference and link to The Harold Weisberg Archive at Hood College, so I think that should be official! ] (]) 01:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	== Greek ==
			:{{u\|Gale Peterson}},
			:Thank you for the note (and the congrats above also). I now finally understand what this is referring to. Sorry, I was busy learning how to archive everything that was above the first 2022 item above this morning, and it took me a while to figure it out.

			:Yes, you fixed the broken link to a PDF file. But the first ref is still to the private web site of the guy, and this second file I am still reviewing the contents of it, to see if it can stand as a verifiable ref on WP. Thank you, ] ] 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	Thanks for your message. No, unfortunately I do not read or write Classical Greek, but I am willing to learn. Happy new year! —] \| ] 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
			::I just added another reference from the National Archives Catalog, Records of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Collection: Key Persons Files, kept at the U.S. Government site https://catalog.archives.gov. It says Thornley was questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the day after Oswald was killed and just a few days after Kennedy was shot. It says Oswald and Thornley served in the Marines together. In the interview, Thornley said he had written a novel based on Oswald, but doesn't say the name of the novel. But the others source I put say the novel's name. I hope this passes muster! ] (]) 21:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::Well, you placed this additional ref at the end of the next sentence, not where it should be, which is at the end of the two sentences you added about Thornley. Why the mention about "Discordianism" (whatever that is) needs to be on Oswad's page beats me.
			:::But beyond that, after reading all the material you added and reading more about the guy on his own page, my own opinion has not changed. In my view this guy is a completely non-important, a rather marginal character in the Oswald story, that only serves to add trivial facts and make the whole issue more full of sensationalism and of irrelevant facts. In my view, this rather marginal, non-important character just used the fact that he met Oswald once by chance to try and make a name and a career for himself. I myself would rather remove all mention of him completely from the Oswald page. But I don't want to make a big fuss about something that is little, trivial, and not really important. I would at least remove the mention of "Discordianism" (whatever that is) from the Oswald page, since it does not have anything that relates to Oswald. But I won't do anything for the time being. The whole matter is in my view, again, just a completely marginal and unimportant distraction from the real important matters regarding Oswald and the Kennedy assassination. But then again, at least half of that page consists just of this kind of sensationalist and distracting, marginal and non-important petty gossip about other unimportant characters such as this one. Just so people reading about the matter get distracted and confused by unimportant, marginal bullshit. Oh well, enough of this crap for me, I am just stating my own opinion here in my own page, and that's the end of this matter for me. Thank you, ] ] 22:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

	== ~~Scholem~~ ==		== bar/ben yochai ==
	I honestly don't remember what my source was for the information about Scholem, most likely I translated bits from the Hebrew language Misplaced Pages. I don't speak Italian. I may also have opened a book, but I can't think what book it was (this was before Misplaced Pages started putting such an emphasis on sourcing). And I added a tidbit of information from my own knowledge, the fact that he was married to Fania (the two were neighbors of my grandparents). --] 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

			Wonder if you'd care to weigh in , which in my opinion is a question of whether to value academic sources over religious orthodoxy. ] (]) 04:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
	:Take another look at the history of the article, you might find it enlightening. You can track the evolution of the article by clicking on the dates in the history page. Yes, I did create the article in December 2004, but I wrote nothing about the division into three stages. This is what I wrote: A few weeks later, another user, ], who apparantly speaks Italian but not the best English, added a lump of text to the bottom, which he/she had translated from the Italian Misplaced Pages: . I then revisted the article and attempted to touch up the English and blend the new text into the old, adding the comment ''some corrections, still needs major cleanup and fact checking'': . By tracking the article from "diff" to "diff" (from one edit to the next) it should be possible for you to identify which editor is reponsible for precisely which sentences in the text. You can ask ] about the Italian. --] 15:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

	== ~~Thanks for your help~~ ==		== DRN ==

			Hi, I opened a DRN for Book of Daniel here
	I appreciate your support; I was already at wits end. Having already reverted it twice and seeing that my words are falling on deaf ears, I decided to call it quits until tomorrow. The reverter seems to be knowledgeable but his understanding of the differences between Litvaks and Hasidim and all the forms of Orthodoxy is probably less then my understanding of the differences between Sunni and Shiites.

			] ] (]) 00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
	Sometimes it’s lonely out there when you edit and it’s good to know that there are people who will stick up for someone when they're right. ] 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

			== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
	:You're welcome. Your edits on that case were right on the mark, and I was happy to see someone with the guts to go there and do it. I was still studying that entry (and still am, as a matter of fact), so I wasn't at the state where I thought I could change anything there yet. But when I saw your changes they made absolute sense, and then the guy compounded it by reverting everything without even considering, as you explained. But I saw right throught where that guy was coming from. Actually, any time. I am Jewish history buff, but especially 16th through 16th centuries, so if you need help with anything related to it or to Jewish History in general, please feel free to ask for my help. I will look into it, and even research it if needed. On the technical side of Misplaced Pages I still have a lot to learn, too. But I'd be glad to look into stuff, or help, if you need. Regards, ] 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	::Thanks for your offer; here in Misplaced Pages more then ever no one can go it alone. You gotta be bold if you think that you're in the right and the main thing is to go about it right. Thanks again; and now that I know that you're a history buff we'll have plenty of opportunity to help each other. ] 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2022\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	==User:Toffeenose==

			If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
	Hi,

			</div>
	This account is clearly used for vandalism.
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1124425177 -->

			== Always precious ==
	I have reported him to :
			]
			Ten years ago, ] were found precious. That's what you are, always. --] (]) 07:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
			:Thank you {{u\|Gerda Arendt}}.

			== Hero of Alexander ==
	]

			In 1st century CE, Hellenistic engineer, describes a matter as made up of particles with spaces between them.Even if his account denies the fundamental tenet of classical atomism, it does not change the fact of intrinsic properties like shapes.I have corrected it,can i now upload it ] (]) 20:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
	Hopefully, he'll soon be out of Misplaced Pages.
			:No, you can't. This is not sourced by any ], and it looks like ]. The links and the language still has errors, and the connection between shapes and atomism makes no sense at all. As it is it just looks like garbage to me. Sorry. Thank you, ] ] 21:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
			::Ok ] (]) 06:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

			== why rollback my good faith edit to embellish the context of the page? thank you ==
	]

			curious as to wikipedia policy here ] (]) 03:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
	] 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
			:What, the regime of Fulgencio Batista was not a dictatorship? You were removing stable and important information with a clear POV in mind. That is why I reverted it. In any case, you can always discuss your proposed edits at the article's talk page, not here. Thank you, ] ] 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

			== Strauss and Aesopian Language ==
	:Thanks for the prompt action. The vandal is now gone! I'll learn for the future from your edit here, and I also just learned how to add a nice smiley! ] Thanks for teaching me these two useful tools. Regards,
	:] 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

			I wanted to make the argument that Strauss and Aesopian language does have some link.
	Glad to help.

			To quote from the Strauss article
	We'll defeat trolls and vandals for ever !

			"In the late 1930s, Strauss called for the first time for a reconsideration of the "distinction between exoteric (or public) and esoteric (or secret) teaching". In 1952 he published Persecution and the Art of Writing, arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction. Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime, and protecting the regime from the corrosion of philosophy; it attracts the right kind of reader and repels the wrong kind; and ferreting out the interior message is in itself an exercise of philosophic reasoning."
	]

			I'd like to highlight the section that says "Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime."
	] 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

			Also in the Strauss article: "Some critics of Strauss have accused him of being elitist, illiberal and anti-democratic. Journalists such as Seymour Hersh have opined that Strauss endorsed noble lies, "myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society"." Although noble lies can be seen as somewhat opposite of Aesopian language (as Aesopian language refers to an underground movement using language to deceive a regime and noble lies refer to a regime deceiving its people)
	== User names and authenticity ==
	Hi Yuval,

			To me, these quotes relate to Aesopian language as seen with the first sentence in the relevant article:
	Welcome to WP! FWIW, I don't find your question naive at all. In fact it is very interesting and I definitely cannot address it with any authority or confidence. If I may though, I'd like to spontaneously share with you some of my personal observations regarding the matter:
	* I sign with my personal, actual name for multiple reasons (in no particular order):
	:# <u>Relational authenticity:</u> I think it adds authenticity to my comments on talk pages. At least this is often my own feeling when dealing with other users who happen to use what appears to be their real names as opposed to a fabricated sign-on. For instance, I am currently engaging in a somewhat difficult discussion with another user whose sign-on is not his real full name; however, during our discussion, he has signed his appends using his full name; thus, I now address him by his first name and feel that I am able to engage him with more care and respect. I guess, in other words, a real name helps me engage others more authentically, as people capable of relations, perhaps as a Buber "thou." I hope for others my use of my actual name does the same.
	:# <u>Cautions civility on my part:</u> It forces me to stick to reality. Occasionally, my thoughts show poor judgment and I'm tempted to respond to another in anger or with sarcasm or in other ways lacking maturity or wisdom. By using my real name, it reminds me to respond in a manner consistent with the actual persona with which I desire others to perceive me. Perhaps put another way, using my actual name forces me to be more vulnerable and thus more thoughtful than a fabricated name does.
	:# <u>Neutral long-term identifier:</u> My actual name is a very consistent way to reflect who I am over time. In a certain sense, my name -- from birth to death -- is a simple handle for referring to myself. There have been times when I've wanted to choose a sign-on name that reflects something that is important to me at the time; so, for instance, on another Internet system I use the sign-on, "ekayano_ayam," which is a Pali term referring to Buddhist mindfulness meditation as being a direct path to the extinction of suffering. But I've come to the view that such fabricated names are limiting and confusing. For instance, in this particular case, "ekayano_ayam" is limiting because my on-going interests are not always focussed so strongly on mindfulness, e.g., other times I'd like to focus on the issue of compassion or domestic violence or American politics, etc. In addition, it can be confusing to others, such as my parents (who are increasingly tolerant of my Buddhist pursuits but who have no ways of relating to a name such as "ekayano_ayam") or Christian and Jewish neighbors (who now send e-mail to my ekayano_ayam id about gardening and community resources, etc.). To give another example, someone else who is currently highly engaged on the WP Buddhism articles has a fabricated user name suggesting risk taking and seems to be an epithet used in Hollywood action movies; not infrequently, his name causes me to wonder about his commitment to Buddhism and thus, more applicably, the depth of his understanding of Buddhist issues.
	:# <u>WP Buddhism norm:</u> I think the norm for WP Buddhist contributors actually is to sign with real names. For instance, the person who first welcomed me to WP and who provided much-appreciated mentoring support for me early on is ]. In addition, a person for whom I have enormous respect in regards to his scholarship is ]. Other very important recent contributors include ], Clay Collier (who signs his talk posts with his real name although his sign-in name is ]), Rudy Harderwijk (whose sign-in name is ] although his user page identifies his whole name and he signs his posts "rudy"), Dr. Tony Page (user id: ] but his user page provides his real name -- again, like you seem inclined to do) and ]. So perhaps there are WP subcultural influences regarding this matter as well.

			"Aesopian language is a means of communication with the intent to convey a concealed meaning to informed members of a conspiracy or underground movement, whilst simultaneously maintaining the guise of an innocent meaning to outsiders."
	* Conversely, I sometimes don't use my personal, actual name -- that is, I don't sign on, I simply use an IP address of whatever computer I am on in the followign situations:
	:# <u>Safety:</u> For reasons of personal safety and the safety of my family, I don't want some former clients to find me. Thus, I use my actual name but I've tried to keep my home state obscure. (And I know that each of the states I've lived in has multiple people with my actual name.) The reason is that, over the years (as a social worker involved in domestic violence and child abuse cases), I have often had to testify, provide assistance and engage in other activities that worked against the intense personal self interests of some interpersonally violent and mentally unstable persons. One person met me at his driveway with a rifle. One set his dog on me. Another threatened to track me down and kill me and my family. Another repeatedly said that if he knew my address he would make false child abuse reports against me. Others have sexually abused their own kin.... Etc. And, of course, it's one thing for them to be a threat to me (which is part of the job); it is a completely different thing for them to be a threat to my family. So, when people are concerned about personal safety matters (real or perceived), I can understand that they choose not to present their actual identity.
	:# <u>Separating edits from my user page content:</u> At times I don't want my user page's information to cloud reasons for my edit. So, for instance, in the past, I've made minor changes to articles related to child development and I didn't want my user page's overwhelming emphasis on Buddhism to alienate anyone who might want to discuss a change I've made. In addition, I recently offered some possible citation material on the page of a politically sensitive topic; I didn't want anyone who might see my offer as part and parcel with political views that then might be conflated with Buddhism, etc. Thus, to distance my Buddhist interests from highly unrelated Buddhist topics, I've avoided using my actual name (which here is correlated with a heavily Buddhist user page).
	:# <u>Safeguard other personal matters:</u> I've made edits (essentially wrote) the current article ] (CPS) based on my experience in such work. However, after I made the edits, I realize I didn't ask my supervisors for permission to do so. (As it is, my CPS workplace never stipulated that I needed to seek such permission; however, I would deeply regret if I unintentionally wrote anything that my supervisors would assess as reflecting poorly on our agency or institution -- although, of course, on WP I feel compelled to maintain neutrality in all edits). So, in my naivete, to distance my agency from complicity in anythign I personally wrote (again, not to be deceptive about my intentions but out of respect for others' work), I decided to delete my entire contribution and then reintroduce from an anonymous IP (now, not so anonymous: ]). I then had additional concerns about this (e.g., that such would be seen as duplicitous on my part) so I then deleted my entire contribution (from the IP address this time) again. Someone else however decided to reintroduce the majority of my edits, deleting a few tangential comments I had made in the article that the subsequent editor felt might have reflected POV. While I think this turned out okay, it underlines for me that I initially was highly ambivalent about using my real name since such might have unintentional consequences for the institution and its people with whom I work.
	Does this make sense? Perhaps too much information? I hope something in this resonates for you. If you have additional thoughts, I'd be interested in hearing them. And, once again, welcome to WP. I wish you the best, ] (]) 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

			If you think it's appropriate, you can revert the changes to the See Also section under Leo Strauss where I linked to the Aesopian Language Article. I'm willing to defer to you as an arbiter in this case, as you have more experience than I do.
	:Larry,

			Good luck in your endeavors! ] (]) 12:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
	:Thank you very much for your very thoughtful reply. Everything you say makes very good sense in both directions, both for giving authenticity personal signs in certain situations, or for eschewing them in others. I had not thought about all these different scenarios you describe, and in that sense yes, my question did have to it a certain natural naivete. Since I don't have either the professional or the spiritual issues you describe (I am a simple IT support analyst in real life), I guess for me personally, I don't see a problem keeping my WP persona the way it is. Thanks again for making aware of all types of considerations every person must make as s/he begins to engage more fully with this new ethos called WP. Best regards,
			:OK,I think I understand you now. Do whatever you think is right. I don't have much interest or knowledge on the issue in any case at this point. Thank you, ] ] 16:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
	:] 19:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

			== Popkin's book ==
	::Yuval - Thank you too for your kindness and thoughtfulness. Best wishes, ] (]) 17:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

			As you suggested, I am looking at ''The History of Skepticism: From Erasmus to Spinoza'' by Richard H. Popkin. I also read a review of the book by Ezequiel de Olaso, one of his student. It is clearly religiously oriented. The word "God" occurs about 320 times and the book has about 380 pages. It is natural that it is religiously oriented, because it covers the late medieval and renaissance periods and Popkin was himself a scolar in religions. To get other view points, as required by Misplaced Pages neutrality principle, I am also looking at other books about the history of skepticism, including a book by Chatalian and a book by Floridi, which are less religiously oriented. I hope you do not fear that this might be {{tq\|philosophical forays into post-modern jargon-filled (and name-dropping of any idiot that has ever published anything as a "famous philospher") philosophical streams of consciousness}} and that I will only do my {{tq\|own synthesis of these post-modern, off-the-mainstream new trends in philosophy.}} It is not nice to make this kinds of assumptions about other wikipedians. I don't deserve that. Please instead discuss intelligently the sources with me, which is possible, because I provide references. Every thing I contribute is well sourced and can be verified. I appreciate that your inclination toward religiously oriented sources might give you the impression that other sources are {{tq\|off-the-mainstream new trends in philosophy}} from {{tq\|'''"'''famous philosophers'''"'''}} (in quotation marks), but actually I consider valid notorious sources and I think the article (and you personally) would benefit from a better consideration of these sources. It hurts me that you do not have a nicer attitude. ] (]) 06:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
	== Masoretic text ==
			:There is nothing religious about Popkin's book. The only reason he deals with the god question is because in the early modern period which he is dealing with, that was the main target of skepticism, to begin with. It was to be able to eliminate the hurdle that religion put up in the way of philosophy. I'd prefer you get off my page with your own musings, enough I have to suffer them on the Epistemology page. Thank you, ] ] 13:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
			::The main point I needed to say in your talk page is please stop being rude. The rest of it was just the context. If you continue to be rude and I cannot take care of this in your talk page, I will go through some third party process. It's up to you. ] (]) 20:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
			:::I am not being rude in any way. I am expressing precisely what I think about your long musings, which for me rarely say something I feel is worth wasting my time on. Thank you for not bothering me here again. ] ] 21:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	Thanks for your encouragement! My issue with the article as it was was that it was supposed to be about the Masoretic text, but in fact it was actually mostly about 50% (pretty randomly selected) of the old JE article on Masorah -- which meant, it seemed to me, (1) it wasn't really telling the story of the Masoretic Text itself very well at all; and (2) it was very confusing, promising one thing, then talking about another; and randomly missing out about half of the JE article to boot made it even harder to follow. So I thought I'd see what I could do.

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	The most useful source I've found for the detail on what texts there seem to have been in use at the different times is the article I've cited by Menachem Cohen. There's also another article by him , covering much of the same ground at a slightly more introductory level, focussed on addressing why the idea of a "]" may not hold much water.
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2023\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	The broad time divisions pre-Akiva, post-Akiva and Masoretic seem to be pretty traditional. The Dead Sea Scrolls have perhaps shown that a lot more of the versions in circulation seem to have been rather closer to what became the MT than was perhaps imagined in the C19; but they've also confirmed that there definitely were also Hebrew texts at that time close to the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentatech version. Anyway, the broad picture seems to be supported in the summaries given by the Introduction to the New English Bible in the link I quoted, and by the NIV translation group .

	Beyond that, some of the specific material on the Dead Sea Scrolls I've lifted from the talk page, some of the text about the Masoretes from the ] page, and some of the text about Masoretic period from further down the MT page itself (it's originally from the public domain JE article). So someone could probably do a ]-style analysis on where different bits have come from!

			If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	(BTW the Haas reference looks suspect: she doesn't seem to be a great authority, and bits of the claim though not 100% wrong, aren't 100% right either, at least from more authoritative stuff I've found through Google).

			</div>
	On the Masorah itself, the JE article is pretty good, though the structure I find makes it harder to read than it should be. There's also a useful article in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia (now also out of copyright), and Google Books finds a good page in the "Text and MSS of the OT" article of the International Standard Bible Encylopedia (1994) -- which makes me wish the page before, on the transmission and collation of the Masoretic text, was there to consult as well! The Schaff-Herzog article "Text of the Old Testament" has some material too.
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->

			== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C ==
	(There may also be some other online sources that I've seen or checked, but not remembered here).

			<section begin="announcement-content" />
	Also, I haven't read it yet, but this article on ''ancient'' scribal practices looks interesting, though not entirely on-topic: .
			:''] ''

			Dear Wikimedian,
	So: it's not all condensed from one particular place; but I hope what I've written is pretty mainstream, and fair and balanced, and not making any new sytheses.

			You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
	But it would be good to have another pair of eyes on the article. If there's anything I've written that doesn't look right to you, then do please question it. If there's anything that doesn't flow, or needs re-writing, then do please re-write it (I suspect I'm not the greatest editor in the world). And if there's anything that should be expanded on, or that you think that there are some good references to support that could be included, then ''please'', do go ahead. I'm just trying to make the article as useful and informative as I can, and I'm aware that I'm maybe not the best writer in the world, so if there's any help you can give I'd be delighted.

			This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
	All best, ] 20:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

			The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ].
	== Threats and the 3RR ==

			Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
	Regarding your threat , I must insist that you refrain from making threats against myself or any other user in this or any other editing dispute.

			On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />
	If you are not already aware of it, I also am obligated to bring to your attention ], which prohibits you from exceeding three reverts on the same article in a 24 hour period.

			] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
	If you wish to discuss the article in question, we can do so on that article's talk page. But there is no requirement that I do so prior to editing this article, especially regarding such a minor matter. There is no requirement that the article remain in your preferred state prior to such discussion. If this was a requirement, then if you check the edit history, you'll see that you are the one who would be required to start discussion, because that sentence was worded according to my preferences for three years until changed by Octavian history in December 2007. ] <small>(])</small> 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 -->

			== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
	== 3RR vio on ] ==

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	I have blocked you for 6 hours for repeatedly reverting on ] more than 3 times in 24 hours. The discussion page for that article has not even been used. I appreciate that the other editor came close to this, but stopped just short. I will give that person a stern warning about 3RR.
			<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2024\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	Even if you are really sure you are correct, repeat reversions of other peoples work are not acceptable. If you disagree with this block then you can have it reviewed at by entering <nowiki>{{unblock\|reason}}</nowiki> ] 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
	:What is "vio"? I did not revert it three times, the other person is the one who did it. Look at the history of the page: I was the to first suggest the discussion page, not him. He refused to go there! I completely disagree with this unjust, unjustified, and wrong decision.
	:] (]) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

			</div>
	Vio is short for "violation". You undid the actions of other users 4 times . The other user has not even made 4 edits today and has been warned about their danger of reaching this limit. Just as you were warned about reaching this limit in the thread above.
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->

			== Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed ==
	Like I said, if you think this block is not just you can ask for review. ] 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

			Hello '''Warshy'''! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to ] may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the ]. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at ]. Thank you! <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I have not refused to engage in discussion. I merely ask that you be civil during that discussion. If you are willing to refrain from further rude remarks, I have no objection to you being unblocked. ] <small>(])</small> 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

	Since Gamaliel does not object to unblocking, if you agree to reach a consensus on the talk page before further editing to the page I will be happy to unblock. ] 17:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

	:Who are you? This is kind of ridiculous: I was the first one to reasonably suggest we go to the discussion page, whereas he just went and blocked me! Incredible.
	:] (]) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

	::Perhaps I am reading this sentence incorrectly, but you seem to be saying I am the one who blocked you. I did not block you, nor did I even request that you be blocked. ] <small>(])</small> 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

	I am an admin. I am the one who blocked you, not Gamaliel. While you did suggest going to the discussion page, you kept on reverting. If you simply agree to reach a consensus(and respect that consensus) before editing the page further then I can unblock you. I expect this from both of you by the way, not just you Warshy. ] 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

	:You must be some kind of bad, biased admin. For example, I cannot even edit the unblock reason page as you state. I did not revert his changes 4 times as you say. He started this reversion streak by reverting a formula I had already agreed to since yesterday, by user Octavian history. Again, I was the one who first suggested going to the discussion page. He not only REFUSED to do that, he went straight to you. Unbelievable.
	:] (]) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

	::I did not go to anyone. I never requested that you be blocked. Please stop making things up. ] <small>(])</small> 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

	I tried to come to an agreement. But since you won't agree to the alternative you can just wait out the 6 hours. You put the <nowiki>{{unblock\|reason}}</nowiki> template on this page and it will be automatically placed in a category for admins to find you. I am not being biased, I am really not even familiar with the subject or either of you editors, frankly I think it rather poor taste to make that assumption. ] 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

	== ] edits ==

	You recently undid to ] with the claim "''the supposed reference work is not in the bibliography and is never correctly refer''". It is true that the reference I cited is not in the "]" because it was in the "References" section, immediately above that.

	I have now combined (and re-sorted) the two sections into one, and am restoring my edit. If you have an issue with this, can you please discuss it with me ''first'' so we don't get into a 3RR situation? Thanks --] <sup>]</sup> 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

	:Yes. I have replied in your talk page, even before I saw this message here. This is a circular argument: the three notes refer to the reference section, where all you have is a supposed reference. But it is not a complete reference to a work that can be identified. I asked for you to poimt me to the full reference to this work in my question in your page. Thanks,
	:]] 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Re: Vandal user 70.233.170.125 ==

	It looks like there have been two users from closely related IP addresses vandalizing the pages: User:70.233.170.125 and User:70.233.194.224. Unfortunately, since I'm not an administrator, I can't block them. However, both were blocked by an administrator earlier today. ] (]) 03:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

	== I liked your comment ==
	I liked your comments on the discussion on the article entitled ]. Some want to delete my user page, just because it discusses some groups that don't accept the talmud as divine.--] (]) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

	== ] / ] / ] ==

	I've left a question at the AWB check page. You need the built-in "rollback" tool to use ]. I'd be happy to enable it on your account, but you need remember to only use rollback in cases of clear-cut and obvious vandalism (see ]). Fair enough? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Both huggle and AWB are separate programs and won't effect your browser or your popups, you'll want to leave that enabled. Please do be ''extremely careful'' when using huggle, it's a ridiculously powerful tool that can cause damage to the project in turns of turning off new contributors. If you're looking to tend to a limited set of articles with regards to vandalism, huggle isn't quite what you're looking for. I can't overstate enough that it must only be used for obvious vandalism only. See below for more. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 20:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
	:To answer your question, yes you can go ahead and download AWB now and see if it will help you with your tasks. As for which one to use first, I think AWB is closer in terms of what you are looking for. Huggle is a single-purpose tool to combat vandalism. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

	===Your request for rollback===
	]
	After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
	*Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing ].
	*Rollback can be used to revert ''clear'' cases of ] ''only'', and not good faith edits.
	*Rollback may be removed at any time.
	If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view ]. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message {{#ifeq:\|<!-- nothing -->\|<!-- also nothing -->\|on ]}} if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 20:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)<!-- Template:Rfr/granted -->

	===questions===
	::I'm still a little confused, so two questions again: a) You now added Twinkle into the mix, and I had forgotten it. I think when I tried to toy with Twinkle in the past it was only for other browsers, not IE, and so I left it alone. Is it now compatible with XP, and is it better than AWB or Huggle in your view? And, b) You said you've now enabled Rollback in my configuration. Does that mean I have Rollback even without installing Huggle, or in order to use Rollback I've still got to install Huggle before? In other words: Is Rollback an independent feature (How do I use it as such?), or is a Huggle feature? Thanks again. Sorry for so many doubts/questions.--]] 20:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}} No worries about the doubts, and questions, it shows me you're proceeding cautiously with the new toys. Twinkle still does not work on IE, but that's ok because ] is still much better than IE. If you can switch (i.e. there's no restrictions on your PC), I'd highly reccomend it as Firefox and Misplaced Pages go together like bread and butter. And then you can use Twinkle, which is another great tool that adds functionality over-and-above these other ones we're discussing. OK, enough proselytizing. Native rollback, which I've just granted you, allows you to rollback a user's edit(s) by clicking the "rollback" button you will now see in your watchlist, recent changes, and on history and contribution pages. Be mindful especially when looking at your watchlist, as misclicks could cause you to revert good edits. If you'd prefer hiding these rollback links from your wtachlist, ]. Huggle utilizes rollback by watching recent changes and highlighting edits it thinks might be unconstructive. It's really quite impressive, to be honest, but it scares me sometimes =) –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
	:After ec: I've just noticed you used rollback for the first time, on yourself ;> (that's a permitted use, by the way) –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
	::OK, let me start again trying to summarize where I am and see what doubts I still have. If you can explain to me maybe in simple terms what the difference is between Rollback and the native "Undo" wiki feature, that would help. I've just seen on myself, I think, inadvertently of course, how powerfull the Rollback tool can be, and so that is powerfull enough for the time being, and I don't think I will need Huggle at the moment. But Rollback only rolls back one edit at a time, correct? You can't roll back 2 or 3 edits that a vandal did on a page in sequence, correct? So basically, what is the 'basic' (sorry) difference between Undo and Rollback? Hope it sticks this time, since in my last edit, after spending 10 minutes writing, it just said there was a conflict between my edit and someone's else edit on the same page, and I lost it...--]] 20:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
	OK, don't worry. Through the "edit conflict" little link you put above I was able to go to the "revert" page, and I am now reading myself about the differences between the Undo and the Rollback. I still don't understand all the features of the Rollback, but I hope I'll be slowly getting there. Again, that's enough editing feautures/power for me for the time being, and until I digest the Rollback I am not going to advance to AWB or to Huggle yet. Thanks again for all you help. You are quick on this stuff and also good on guessing some user's next move/question!...--]] 21:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
	:No problem. Sorry, I got distracted and didn't notice your follow up question on my watchlist. Yes, if the same vandal makes a few bad edits in a row, rollback will revert them all. If several different vandals make edit in concert, you can always look at the revision history of an article, click an old revision, then "edit", "save", and you will have moved the article back. Just be careful of going over good edits in this manner. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 21:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

	==Karaite Judaism links==
	Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the links (website and blog) I anonymously added to the ] webpage. I'm familiar with the people who created the websites in question, and they seem legit and informative to me. Please let me know. --] (]) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
	:Hello,
	:I don't recall deleting any links on that page? There must be a mistake/confusion here? I don't even really care about the many links all sorts of people keep putting there, as I have very rarely consulted them so far. Regards, --]] 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
	OK, I just looked at the revision history of that page and you were the person who had made the edit that deleted the links (and also corrected a couple transliterations and pronunciations). I've put the links back, but I didn't know what you did about one of the pronunciations so I reverted it to the old version. IMO that pronunciation is not a big deal, but you might want to look at the page ]. --] (]) 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Just a note ==

	It's not wise to make those sort of comments. I personally don't mind roughhouse, insinuations, sneers, or whatever, and have a clean record of not whingeing about the stray bitching on wikipedia. Administrators are overloaded with whiners, many using the remonstrative forums for tactical ends, without my adding to the burden. My only point would be that, by inserting that conspiracy insinuation and ] violation there, your edit threatened to sink a legitimate request to get Nina to reply with precision to a simple request she has, in my view, consistently ignored.
	I myself wish to avoid the air of suspicion that 'we' are out to get Nina, or that Nina has, with tacit support, taken up the mission whose leading proselytiser, Smatprt, failed to complete, on behalf of de Vereans. That is why I have stayed clear of polemics, avoided overloading the threads, and tried to stick to relevant issues. Please don't give the impression of being a cheer-leader for her, or anyone else. Play to the gallery and one ends up in the pits.] (]) 00:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

	:I've read and studied your publishing on Misplaced Pages in silence, in depth, for a long time now to be able to ever even suspect any good faith on your part. No, you are a master of polemics on any area you decide for some reason to engage. I sometimes suspect you really are in it not for any deeply held convictions, but just for the kicks of the polemics itself. And because you are a great admirer of your own prose and of your own wit. But what is this here? You now come to my page to threaten me already with violations, with 'conspiracy' (again, what a surprise, no?), and of ending who knows where... I said plain and clear what I think of you and of the role you played on getting a guy you disagreed with and wanted banned from Misplaced Pages banned from Misplaced Pages. Your unexpected and unwelcome visit here above is very befitting of everything I have thought and said about you from reading very carefully a lot of your output here in the last year. Be sure that I am watching you, and have been for quite some time. But also, please keep clear of my page with your veiled threats and admonitions. Keep it for your own friends. I certainly don't want to count you among mine... You are mostly unwelcome here in the future. And have a nice life too. ]] 03:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
	::<blockquote>You now come to my page to threaten me already with violations, with 'conspiracy' (again, what a surprise, no?), and of ending who knows where... </blockquote>
	::Actually, you haven't read long and carefully. I did not post a threat, or, as you put it, 'threaten (you) with violations'. It is a a matter of the elementary construal of the unambiguous sense of the English language to infer, when I write:-
	::<blockquote>My only point would be that, by inserting that conspiracy insinuation and ] violation there.</blockquote>
	::that the point being made is not a threat, but merely a matter of registering the fact that you wrote effectively that (a) I do not edit in good faith, and (b)that I was part of a conspiracy. I.e. I was saying the opposite of the meaning you read into my remarks. You're not obliged to study my boring archives or watch me. Rest assured, however, that I never threaten people, and I exempt your own injurious comments from the sanctions they are normally met with, as a matter of principle. ] (]) 03:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

	I am not responding to you anymore. But it has to be made completely patent and clear that I never mentioned or even hinted anything remotely connected to a 'conspiracy.' You inserted the term here, because that is always an integral part of your tactics. It must be already unconscious even. I said plain and simply that you wanted a guy banned, you worked for that end specifically, and you achieved it. ]] 03:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

	== And another ==

	Would you mind clarifying your remarks, as well as your remark in your edit summary "he even gave himself a barnstar from this, but he points to the unedited first version, of course..."? Exactly who are you talking about, me or Nishidani? Either way, I think it would be wise to remove them. ] (]) 00:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
	:Uh, as a joke I put a pseudobarnstar for being reputed a devious strategist on my page citing Warshy's remarks in a diff. Contextually his edit summary refers to this, so to me. As to the point about the unedited first version, well, people get hypersuspicious around here, and Warshy apparently read some deep meaning into the fact that, in citing him, I cited his uncorrected post. I did so because I always cite the first statement, and not the second if it merely corrects trivial things like spelling.] (]) 01:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

	== Request for Arbitration ==

	You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
	* ];
	* ].

	Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please note them. ] (]) 23:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

	== Shakespeare authorship question opened ==

	An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

	On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

	== ] closed ==

	An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
	#] are enacted for all articles related to the ];
	#{{User\|NinaGreen}} is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year;
	#NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the ], ], or ];
	#The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on {{User\|Smatprt}}. Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to ], broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

	For the Arbitration Committee, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

	== Ferdinand de Saussure ==

	Thanks for ]. I'm looking forward to digging up some research on this in June. Saussure was the basis of an Intro to Lit Theory class I took, so I'll check in the old course text for any editors' commentary. See you then! ] (]) 05:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:32, 10 December 2024

Archives

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much Gerda! Nine years is quite some time. warshy 15:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on the anniversary! Gale Peterson (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald

I think I fixed the problems! I'm sorry that before I accidentally cut part off. I added a reference and link to The Harold Weisberg Archive at Hood College, so I think that should be official! Gale Peterson (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Gale Peterson,

Thank you for the note (and the congrats above also). I now finally understand what this is referring to. Sorry, I was busy learning how to archive everything that was above the first 2022 item above this morning, and it took me a while to figure it out.

Yes, you fixed the broken link to a PDF file. But the first ref is still to the private web site of the guy, and this second file I am still reviewing the contents of it, to see if it can stand as a verifiable ref on WP. Thank you, warshy 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I just added another reference from the National Archives Catalog, Records of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Collection: Key Persons Files, kept at the U.S. Government site https://catalog.archives.gov. It says Thornley was questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the day after Oswald was killed and just a few days after Kennedy was shot. It says Oswald and Thornley served in the Marines together. In the interview, Thornley said he had written a novel based on Oswald, but doesn't say the name of the novel. But the others source I put say the novel's name. I hope this passes muster! Gale Peterson (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, you placed this additional ref at the end of the next sentence, not where it should be, which is at the end of the two sentences you added about Thornley. Why the mention about "Discordianism" (whatever that is) needs to be on Oswad's page beats me.

But beyond that, after reading all the material you added and reading more about the guy on his own page, my own opinion has not changed. In my view this guy is a completely non-important, a rather marginal character in the Oswald story, that only serves to add trivial facts and make the whole issue more full of sensationalism and of irrelevant facts. In my view, this rather marginal, non-important character just used the fact that he met Oswald once by chance to try and make a name and a career for himself. I myself would rather remove all mention of him completely from the Oswald page. But I don't want to make a big fuss about something that is little, trivial, and not really important. I would at least remove the mention of "Discordianism" (whatever that is) from the Oswald page, since it does not have anything that relates to Oswald. But I won't do anything for the time being. The whole matter is in my view, again, just a completely marginal and unimportant distraction from the real important matters regarding Oswald and the Kennedy assassination. But then again, at least half of that page consists just of this kind of sensationalist and distracting, marginal and non-important petty gossip about other unimportant characters such as this one. Just so people reading about the matter get distracted and confused by unimportant, marginal bullshit. Oh well, enough of this crap for me, I am just stating my own opinion here in my own page, and that's the end of this matter for me. Thank you, warshy 22:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

bar/ben yochai

Wonder if you'd care to weigh in here, which in my opinion is a question of whether to value academic sources over religious orthodoxy. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

DRN

Hi, I opened a DRN for Book of Daniel here

Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Book of Daniel Billyball998 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt.

Hero of Alexander

In 1st century CE, Hellenistic engineer, describes a matter as made up of particles with spaces between them.Even if his account denies the fundamental tenet of classical atomism, it does not change the fact of intrinsic properties like shapes.I have corrected it,can i now upload it Cuando de hyiopi (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you can't. This is not sourced by any WP:RS, and it looks like WP:OR. The links and the language still has errors, and the connection between shapes and atomism makes no sense at all. As it is it just looks like garbage to me. Sorry. Thank you, warshy 21:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok Cuando de hyiopi (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

why rollback my good faith edit to embellish the context of the page? thank you

curious as to wikipedia policy here 67.8.169.171 (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What, the regime of Fulgencio Batista was not a dictatorship? You were removing stable and important information with a clear POV in mind. That is why I reverted it. In any case, you can always discuss your proposed edits at the article's talk page, not here. Thank you, warshy 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Strauss and Aesopian Language

I wanted to make the argument that Strauss and Aesopian language does have some link.

To quote from the Strauss article

"In the late 1930s, Strauss called for the first time for a reconsideration of the "distinction between exoteric (or public) and esoteric (or secret) teaching". In 1952 he published Persecution and the Art of Writing, arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction. Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime, and protecting the regime from the corrosion of philosophy; it attracts the right kind of reader and repels the wrong kind; and ferreting out the interior message is in itself an exercise of philosophic reasoning."

I'd like to highlight the section that says "Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime."

Also in the Strauss article: "Some critics of Strauss have accused him of being elitist, illiberal and anti-democratic. Journalists such as Seymour Hersh have opined that Strauss endorsed noble lies, "myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society"." Although noble lies can be seen as somewhat opposite of Aesopian language (as Aesopian language refers to an underground movement using language to deceive a regime and noble lies refer to a regime deceiving its people)

To me, these quotes relate to Aesopian language as seen with the first sentence in the relevant article:

"Aesopian language is a means of communication with the intent to convey a concealed meaning to informed members of a conspiracy or underground movement, whilst simultaneously maintaining the guise of an innocent meaning to outsiders."

If you think it's appropriate, you can revert the changes to the See Also section under Leo Strauss where I linked to the Aesopian Language Article. I'm willing to defer to you as an arbiter in this case, as you have more experience than I do.

Good luck in your endeavors! BigBulborb (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

OK,I think I understand you now. Do whatever you think is right. I don't have much interest or knowledge on the issue in any case at this point. Thank you, warshy 16:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Popkin's book

As you suggested, I am looking at The History of Skepticism: From Erasmus to Spinoza by Richard H. Popkin. I also read a review of the book by Ezequiel de Olaso, one of his student. It is clearly religiously oriented. The word "God" occurs about 320 times and the book has about 380 pages. It is natural that it is religiously oriented, because it covers the late medieval and renaissance periods and Popkin was himself a scolar in religions. To get other view points, as required by Misplaced Pages neutrality principle, I am also looking at other books about the history of skepticism, including a book by Chatalian and a book by Floridi, which are less religiously oriented. I hope you do not fear that this might be philosophical forays into post-modern jargon-filled (and name-dropping of any idiot that has ever published anything as a "famous philospher") philosophical streams of consciousness and that I will only do my own synthesis of these post-modern, off-the-mainstream new trends in philosophy. It is not nice to make this kinds of assumptions about other wikipedians. I don't deserve that. Please instead discuss intelligently the sources with me, which is possible, because I provide references. Every thing I contribute is well sourced and can be verified. I appreciate that your inclination toward religiously oriented sources might give you the impression that other sources are off-the-mainstream new trends in philosophy from "famous philosophers" (in quotation marks), but actually I consider valid notorious sources and I think the article (and you personally) would benefit from a better consideration of these sources. It hurts me that you do not have a nicer attitude. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing religious about Popkin's book. The only reason he deals with the god question is because in the early modern period which he is dealing with, that was the main target of skepticism, to begin with. It was to be able to eliminate the hurdle that religion put up in the way of philosophy. I'd prefer you get off my page with your own musings, enough I have to suffer them on the Epistemology page. Thank you, warshy 13:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The main point I needed to say in your talk page is please stop being rude. The rest of it was just the context. If you continue to be rude and I cannot take care of this in your talk page, I will go through some third party process. It's up to you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not being rude in any way. I am expressing precisely what I think about your long musings, which for me rarely say something I feel is worth wasting my time on. Thank you for not bothering me here again. warshy 21:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Warshy! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)