Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:32, 1 May 2007

Former talk archived to User talk:AnonMoos/Archive1, by popular request. AnonMoos 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Petrus Alfonsi

The Petrus article seems more comprehensive and includes everything from the Peter one, as far as I can tell. Suppose we just used that one, and copied the list of works from the Peter article to a new "works" section in the petrus one? If that makes sense... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Arabs and antisemitism, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Misplaced Pages's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

CB Edits

I know, but you gotta admit that first sentence just ran on and on with 3 changes of subject. Now that sentence about pre-20th Century CBs sounds like a non-sequitur, which I think it is in the opening paragraph. --zabadoh 17:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mona Baker

The Mona Baker case isn't as straightforward as some make it out to be. There are more details in this article: Academic boycotts of Israel. --70.51.230.180 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton

Can you cite that? I've never heard that in my life and I doubt any of the multiple people who worked on the article have heard that either, and they understand Hebrew better than I do. One can argue "Elohim" might be plural, but "Adonai" is not. Remember, no original research. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I said this before and I'll say it again: No original research. If every other Hebrew speaker in the world understands that "Adonai" is either singular or does not fit anywhere into the conjugation system at all, under Misplaced Pages policies, you are incorrect. Whether you are actually wrong or not is irrelevant--You're writing your own original research into the wiki which violates policy. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There's another proposal at Talk:Tetragrammaton to move all the content about Jehovah from that article and Yahweh to its own article. Given your past interest, you may want to comment. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In Reply....

Actually, I was upset with the phrase "Open Sesame," so I changed it to "Open Says Me" and left the Popeye-style parsing as you call it in parentheses for those who aren't intelligent enough to know the difference. But thanks again for your misguided assumption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisabee729 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Regarding Ruth

I acknowledge that Ruth is not counted as a saint by the Catholic Church according to the listing I have just searched, which somewhat surprises me, as I am a Catholic and have noted how many other Old Testament personalities are. However, I do note that as included in the article now Ruth is included in at least one calendar of saints. I'm going through the calendars of saints one by one, so I don't yet know how many others she might be on. So, on that basis, I can't answer your question as to how often she is called a saint, because I haven't checked all the calendars yet. Also, like with all the other articles being put in the Saints project, Book of Ruth is going to be added to the project watchlist, so that the rest of the members of the project can also monitor it for changes, vandalism, and what not, as well as, at least potentially, help improve it. Based on the article's talk page, it's the only project so far that can say that. That actually surprises me, because I thought that the Bible project might have already marked it, but evidently they haven't. You are free to remove the banner if you see fit, however. John Carter 16:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a single list that I know of to refer to, as the different churches all use their own liturgical calendars. I initially created the Category:Old Testament saints in what I now know was the mistaken idea that most or all of the individuals who are regarded as saints by the Christian churches from the so-called Old Testament would be basically fairly universally included in the calendars of all the Christian churches who keep calendars of saints. I was more than a little surprised to find that the Catholics don't regard Ruth as a saint. She is listed in the Calendar of Saints (Lutheran), which was my basis for including her in that category of individuals from the Old Testament considered saints by the Christian churches. As I don't yet know her status in any of the Orthodox or other churches, I think it might be more than reasonable to change the category, in this case, to Category:Lutheran saints, and maybe later change it to something else if and when I find that she is included in other lists as well. Please let me know what you think of the idea. Sorry for any unnecessary confusion and extra effort this has caused you. John Carter 17:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Test pages

You know if you want to create a test page all you need to do is create a sub-page on your user page, like this: User:AnonMoos/test_page. It may be easier than using your main user page as a test page. There are also sandboxes available. Bytebear 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tangent on language

Thanks for your note on date formats on the Regnans in Excelsis talk page. Seeing your interest in language, I thought you'd enjoy this userbox from my talk page. The translation: "My grandfathers and grandmothers could speak Gaelic." —OtherDave 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Female wartime crossdresser category

The transsexual and transgender people category is not only for transsexuals, but also for transgender people, who by definition subvert the rules of gender representation, which all these women did. It is essentially an umbrella category for people who were transexual OR transgendered. I personally think that the transgender people and behavior category is poorly named, but I have added it for the sake of inclusiveness. Asarelah 02:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Chai

Am Yisirael Chai has been a long time rallying cry as well as a Jewish song. I have edited the article to reflect this (removing the word "ancient"). As for the "Black Hebrews", I could not verify "kai" was their spelling for ??, so I removed it. And even if it was, it shouldn't be included. They are a tiny (hate filled) group with a non-standard transliteration. Epson291 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, and your nonsense about the verb stuff makes no sense. The translation could also be "The people of Israel are still living" it is just a translation. And Israel refers to the Jewish people. (The word Jew just comes from Judea) Epson291 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC) And its not a slogan, thats not the correct term at all. Epson291 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I've seen you've made several edits to the page, I'm not (trying to) attack the work you've done on the page. Epson291 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have readded some of what I orinally wrote on your talk page, you removed it, please do not do it again. I have responded at talk:chai (symbol) as I feel it isn't going to be resolved here in addition to you editing my comments out. Epson291 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Zanj

I hear you and Hal are fighting over what the Zanj were. Here's a quote from another article that Hal says is ignorant but I want a second opinion:

According to J. Phillipe Rushton, Arab relations with blacks whom the Muslims had dealt as slave traders for over 1000 years could be summed up as follows:

“

Although the Koran stated that there were no superior and inferior races and therefore no bar to racial intermarriage, in practice this pious doctrine was disregarded. Arabs did not want their daughters to marry even hybridized blacks. The Ethiopians were the most respected, the "Zanj" (Bantu and other Negroid tribes from East and West Africa south of the Sahara) the least respected, with Nubians occupying an intermediate position

”

Judging from the above quote, Zanj seems to mean unhybridized black person or negroid. So the Nubians and Ethiopians were not considered zanj because they were very much hybridized with the Arabs and/or had much exposure to Arab culture.

According to Cavalli-Sforza:

The mixed genetic makeup and use of Afro-Asiatic languages reflect the history of the Ethiopians, who for a long time had close contacts with the Arabs. In and around the earliest Christian times, there was an empire that took in both regions. Its capital was first at Saba (Sheba) in Arabia and later at Axum, in Africa. According to Ethiopian tradition, Makeda, the Queen of Sheba, visited King Solomon and had by him a son, Menelek, founder of the Ethiopian dynasty, which has only recently been overthrown. The Bible tells of these events.

Christmasgirl

8.3

Indeed it is, but I do it with the idea that a person will either understand why I added it or ask me why, in most cases it's obvious the article needs it. In this case it a combination of the overly long intro (especially for the article size) and the odd bolding at the start of directory table. Vicarious 09:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added your references where they belong

Pls look at the reference i have added, you can decide to continue adding your reference or start a war. end the war, and leave well be alone. do not delete other editors tags or references, do not add or. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone please, i have shown u a jesture of good will and added your ref to the other article, end the war. Notice i have made an extensive contribution to ethnic groups in Africa, it is an area i know very well.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 11:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unity Church

A denomination of 2 million is significant. Granted, I'm biased because I'm one of the 2 million, but it's also the only major Western Christian denomination to embrace mysticism. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The real test is, is the Unity Church more important than the Nestorian churches in the global history of Christianity over the last 2,000 years (not just the English speaking world over the last 200 years)? AnonMoos 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)"

I would say "yes". After all, Jehovah's Witnesses are listed, and they have 6 million. Is 6 million the cutoff? --Scottandrewhutchins 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It has as much right to be there as JW, and it's not taking up additional space since it's on the same line. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unity exists all over the world, and its radio, television, and priont publications increase its awareness. When you cite the time factor, it dates back to the nineteenth century, as do Chrisitan Science, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Trefoil knot

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages, AnonMoos! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Misplaced Pages. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule videophysics\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Misplaced Pages's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Misplaced Pages, please note that inserting spam into Misplaced Pages is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chai (symbol)

Just wanted to let you know that I had volunteered to mediate this case, but I wanted to find out first if there is still an issue that requires resolution, since the case is kind of old. Cheers - RJASE1 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that both parties have agreed to mediation, I've started the discussion here, at least for now. Cheers - RJASE1 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten the Chai (symbol) case. Just have been a little busy. I will get the RfC drafted on Saturday or Sunday. RJASE1 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Piran Bay

Hi. Ok, I found some time to explain further why the image needs to be corrected. Please, don't refer to my argumentation as stupid since there are some good reasons and I am not sure if you are fully familiar with the situation. The thing is that the border is not defined, neither on the sea nor on the land. Prior to 1991, Slovenia exercised a full jurisdiction over the whole Bay and the official standpoint of the government is that the border is according to status in 1991. Croatian claim is according to traditional principles but that doesn't mean that it has a better background to claim the territory. Untill the border is not agreed by both sides, saying claimed by one of the countries is therefore POV. So, my suggestion would be (as I see that you are the author of the map):

• If the map illustrates Drnovšek-Račan agreement, the claimed by area should be marked as Slovenian, since this is what the agreement says. And the map can omit the central line.
• If the map just shows the Piran Bay, name the area as disputed territory and omit the corridor, since there is no corridor. So, Italian waters, Slovenian waters, Croatian waters, international waters and disputed area.
• Perhapes the best solution would be to have 3 maps in the article, one with Slovenian and one with Croatia view and one with a compromise solution (but corrected as mentioned in the first paragraph).

I hope you see my point now. Well, personally, this border dispute has been in our media far too long and I am really fed up with it since the only thing it does is it worsens the relations between the two countries. Best regards. --Tone 12:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an image is badly needed. However, the present image does not correspond to the caption. By the Drnovšek-Račan agreement, the disputed area belongs to Slovenia and should be marked as such. So, as I said before already, possible changes are either to correct the map so it will correspond to the agreement or to put there a map without the corridor, as the corridor is something "invented" by the agreement. So, if the map shows just the geography, name the area as disputed territory and omit the corridor, since there is no corridor. So, Italian waters, Slovenian waters, Croatian waters, international waters and disputed area. I am trying to be objective but I realize it is sometimes hard. So, what do you think about modifying the map? --Tone 16:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there is no major problem, it's only my opinion that modifying the captions would be more appropriate. Perhapes we should leave it for a while or ask a third party. --Tone 10:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, concrete suggestion. Put: Slovenian waters, according to the agreement (or a shorter formulation maybe...). Or, without the corridor and marked Disputed area (and the text below the image without mentioning the agreement.) What do you think? --Tone 10:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

the J in Jehoshaphat

Anon, you never did answer my question about where the J came from in other Hebrew names which contain Gods name, Names such as Jehoshaphat. If through the course of time the name meaning "YHWH is salvation" came to be pronounced as "Jehoshaphat" then that is enough evidence of how the tetragrammaton may be pronounced as "Jehovah". since it is a simple matter of pronunciation ie. Michael is Migel, Paul is Pablo, John is Juan (you follow?) then there can be no arguement against pronouncing the name as Jehovah. But to say one is wrong for doing so,is wrong.(I personally believe that opposition to pronouncing Gods name in any of it's various forms is opposition to people calling on the name of God, which is...we don't need to go there,right? I would not fight against pronouncing Gods name.) I don't dispute your knowledge of language. Please though,leave your personal opinions out of your editing and let the articles be edited objectively by others, then you will be better off. You tend to use words like "most" and "the Majority of" instead of "Many" which seems to be supporting your own view that your beliefs are correct,you yourself being in the majority. How many mondern linguists are there? where are the stats? the interviews? have all modern linguists taken a poll on this? where is the evidence that most of these educated people are saying this? if this information is not available then it is only your opinion saying that most of the modern scholars blah,blah,blah. And your points on my talk page about your anonymous name and such, you kinda lost me "dude" Kljenni 16:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I told you how the name Jehovah came into being Kljenni 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Indiana 8.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indiana 8.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Chai

Find a reference for you claim it is spelt kai by the "Black Hebrews", I cannot, or I will remove it. I have asked you before.Epson291 05:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yeshu" vs. "Yeshua"

Greetings, AnonMoos! I've added a few more questions about your response to this query on the Humanities Reference Desk, April 20 (3.12). Would appreciate if you'd answer there. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Further: I've amended my response there to clarify that it was based strictly on contemporary usage. Please note that it might have been instructive in yours, had you linked to the pages on Yeshua and Yeshu—the existence of which I only discovered afterwards. -- Deborahjay 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1. [Race, Evolution, and Behavior, unabridged edition, 1997, by J. Phillipe Rushton pg 97-98
2. The Great Human Diasporas by Cavalli-Sforza pg 199