Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ciriii (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 10 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Til Eulenspiegel, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

--Danski14 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Til Eulenspiegel/Archive1

Physike

Could you please comment at Talk:Physics#Physike? I hope we can come up with a good compromise. Thanks, Gnixon 16:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deucalion

Wow, nice work on Deucalion! KillerChihuahua 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Code of Ur-Nammu

This is an interesting topic, which I didn't know about. I wonder if you could add more in-line citations, though, as there is only one and no general reference is provided. Did you get the other information from the same source and not list it, or from something else? Rigadoun (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is Africa located? I forget —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.244.236 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Code of Ur-Nammu

On 11 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Code of Ur-Nammu, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mosiac law

Hi. The 'eye-for-an-eye' in Mosaic law was not Lex Talonis, though that's a common misperception. Someone who caused the loss of a body part had to pay the victim the VALUE of the part. They were not similarly mutilated. See http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=479511 FiveRings 00:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:18-19;&version=31; --Java7837 13:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Java7837 overstates his case. The reality was between the two. The law required the mutilation of the negligent person part for part, UNLESS they settled the case with a monetary settlement prior to it reaching the judge. Of course, this would strongly have encouraged the offender to pay up, unless he valued his money more than his finger.Cadwallader (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Til Eulenspiegel it has already been stated that the majority of Haitians are of West-African descent. It is unneccessary to name the specifics of genetics seeing it is already clear. The term "West African" or "African" in general encompasses all of these tribes. It also takes away from the professional feel of the section. I greatly appreciate your input but the original statement derives from other encyclopedic works. Thanks for your insight. I hope you understand. Spyder00Boi 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The referenced information states "There were seven major groups: Wolof, Yoruba, Ashanti, Hausa, Mandinka, Ewe and Tuareg." You seem to have "decided" that readers do not need to know the names of the specific nations, and just writing "West African" is good enough, but I still fail to understand why. Please take this to the article discussion page, as this should involve all editors of the article, not just me. Til Eulenspiegel 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your stating of the specific groups defeats the term "West African". You might as well say directly say "95% of Haitians descend from the Wolof, Yoruba, Ashanti, Hausa, Mandinka, Ewe and Tuareg." That would be unencyclopedic. The four primary ancestries of Haitians and most other countries in the Caribbean and Latin America are "African/European/Arab as well as Amerindian (not much in Haiti's case. Spyder00Boi 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the discussion to the haiti talk page Spyder00Boi 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge

Your edit summary was accurate. I have corrected my misphrasing. Thanks. Abecedare 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hammurabi

Hee hee, sorry if the revising I did confused you, I did some rearranging when adding references, moved some information up, and other info was repeated, so I just removed it, as it was given in the intro. 12:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Magog

Hey Til, I see you reverted my redirect of Magog (Bible) to Gog and Magog. I was initially going to merge it, since all things Magog are already covered in more detail at the other page, but there's really nothing to merge - almost everything there is covered more fully at the longer page, and what isn't, isn't sourced. I would almost go so far as to AfD Magog (Bible) as an unlikely search term for Magog. At any rate I commented at the talk page if you wish to respond.--Cúchullain /c 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I could not find a response to Cúchullain's contact. Please discuss the proposed changes on Talk:Magog. -- JHunterJ 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

JHunter, my response from last September to Cuchullain's above contact is at Talk:Magog (Bible). I will also respond to you at Talk:Magog, since it is a slightly different issue (where the page should redirect to, as opposed to the proposed merge). Til Eulenspiegel 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonah

Hi there. Thanks for some good edits on the Jonah page. You were quite right that it was the similarities and not the differences between Gilgamesh and Jonah that were said to be minor - my mistake in the edit summary.

Still, I'm not sure about this. The sentence is cited to a book by Campbell (sadly not on my shelves). My question is, does Campbell attempt to draw parallels but admit that the similarities are minor? Or does Campbell attempt to draw parallels that somebody else thinks are minor? If it is the latter (which I suspect) then we need two citations, not one! Wavehunter 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I agree that the English etymology of worm is not relevant. As for whether Jonah is mythological, I would say he is as mythological as Jason, you might differ, but we can neither of us really know. Either way, your edit stands.

Changed, though, is the assertion that the similarities between Gilgamesh and Jonah are minor. This point was added by User:Kuratowski's Ghost. The original citation (which existed before I ever touched the page) made no such claim. (See Jonah, 28 August 2007.) I have left the point in as a separate sentence requiring a citation: without that it is POV (as I mentioned earlier) and should be omitted. I think readers can decide for themselves whether the similarities are major or minor.

I hope you'll agree that my other edits are worthwhile. Small text instead of superscript, and consistency in the version of the Bible quoted (avoiding confusion between Jonah/Jonas and fish/whale).

Do reply here, or come to my talk page, if you have something to say to me. I hope we can reach consensus. All the best, Wavehunter 02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as consensus, I am okay with the status quo after your last edit. Re your comment: "As for whether Jonah is mythological, I would say he is as mythological as Jason, you might differ, but we can neither of us really know." According to the Neutrality policy, what we editors may think is supposedly irrelevant - what matters is whether all significant P-O-Vs are described neutrally, and are cited. There is no significant POV today disputing that Jason is "mythological" AFAIK, but modern references arguing for the historicity of Jonah and the rest of the OT are easy to find, and speak for significant numbers of people today, so there is the difference.

KG's addition stating that there are few similarities between Jonah and Gilgamesh seems to me like a straightforward, inarguable fact that speaks for itself, but I won't quibble if you object or disagree with that, since apparently it isn't cited. Til Eulenspiegel 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (I read that there were attempts in Athens to revive the ancient Greek religion, but I don't think this has taken hold yet!) Best wishes to you and yours. Wavehunter 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Shem

Hello Til Eulenspiegel. You appear to know something about Shem. There is some very strange stuff still in the article, for example, about the Anglo-Saxons being descended from Shem. (A belief related to British Israelism, but certainly not a neutral bit of history). On Talk:Shem I proposed that the page be rolled back to a 15 July version. If you have time to offer an opinion, I would welcome your input on that Talk page. Since there are substantive edits since 15 July, I'd need to re-add those. Thanks, EdJohnston 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Counter-vandalism award

You get this award for all your hard work on reverting vandalism. This award was made for people who are good at vandalism fighting, and you are one of them. have a fun day! 1() 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mt Judi

My apologies for my misleqading edit summary - but it was due to laziness rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Just to clarify, I removed the photo because the connection of Durupinar with Judi is extremely recent, and putting a photo of that location rather than the traditional Judi is undue weight; as for the removal of the other material, it was because it was rather beside the main point. PiCo 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Y Done. You might consider making your user page a redirect to your user talk page (i.e. #REDIRECT ]). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please create a redirect if you don't want a userpage. Most editors find red linked user pages to be quite annoying. --Strothra 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So who appointed you to go around making up user pages for the tons of editors who prefer not to be unwillingly forced to have any link? Til Eulenspiegel 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is annoying to the eye. There is nothing against the creation of a userpage, in fact pages in userspace belong to the Misplaced Pages community - see WP:USER. You should try to create one though, they can be quite useful to serious editors. --Strothra 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. — DIEGO 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not achieved a consensus on the talk page in support of your change. PLEASE STOP NOW or you will be blocked for edit warring and tendentious editing. — DIEGO 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary for this edit represents a personal attack, especially since you completely misunderstood the clear statements of Diego. Please be careful. OrangeMarlin 17:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it was a personal attack. Pleasestop harassing me. Til Eulenspiegel 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be nice and try to get along with others by not edit warring. Thanks. — DIEGO 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

It would make sense to redirect your userpage to your talk page. -- Avi 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are a hero

Hi Til,

you misunderstood me at the biblical / Biblical debate.

I think you've made a lot of good points that no-one else has cared to make. That's a gift to Wiki. It also shows a very keen mind. I think you put up with lots of unfounded, indirect put-downs. That shows self-control and is highly admirable. If you're female, you were the best "man" in the debate.

Actually, the proposal I put forward was based on your suggestions -- things I wouldn't have thought of if you hadn't pointed them out, backed by the CMoS.

Where you misunderstood me is when I said "Til v world", I am one of (it seems) few people who couldn't care less about votes, in fact I usually find I'm against majorities. What I care about are facts and consensus. You have provided facts, the vote side to things is irrelevant, except that I meant to convey admiration and sympathy. (Too late I realise my dumb ambiguity.)

On a practical level, my post was a bid to give you the power to close the debate, with your major points written into the new style guideline. Read the proposal again. Think about it.

It's not too late. Go! Have the final word! Despite the sniping, you've been honourable and there's plenty of respect in people taking you seriously enough to argue with you. I think people will follow you if do this. If I'm wrong, vandalize my user page with text explaining what a dumb idiot I really am. You'll be right, but you won't be able to verify it, lol. Alastair Haines 04:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

your edits

Til, your edits are good in general, but recently I have seen you repeatedly indulging in unconstructive or disruptive edits as well. Try to be reasonable. "Post-Sumerian" means that the copies were made in Old Babylonian times (after Ur III). This is taken directly from Kramer (1968). I know I could have given a page number, but if you follow me around reverting perfectly uncontroversial content just because I didn't bother to cite page number and ISBN for every sentence is hardly the wiki spirit. This apparently pedantic attitude doesn't sit at all well with you in the light of evidence that, on the other hand, you make efforts to preserve uncited fringe content you just happen to like, as you did on Aratta yesterday. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry, Til, my edits to Tower of Babel were straightforward cleanup (e.g., what was a discussion of Breughel and of historical linguistics doing under "Historicity"?). I cannot accept as good faith demands to waste my time explaining my rationals for such perfectly obvious edits to you. Try to help improving the article further instead of prancing around with this disruptive parody of "please discuss". If you have something genuine to discuss, I will happily listen. Playing devil's advocate for fringe views and disrupting perfectly obvious editing will not fly. --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Til, just noticed your repeated reversions of this article. Please note that editors are allowed to be WP:BOLD and do not have to discuss every edit on the talk page. These edits, particularly, go a considerable way to cleaning up this article. If you have a problem with a specific part of the edit then you should bring that up on the talk page. Also, please note the three revert rule, WP:3RR. --Strothra 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

and re your userpage, then do deign to include a link to your talkpage in your sig so people can click on it. What are you here for, to help build an encyclopedia, or to play the diva? really. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil to you; there is no call for you to be so to me. Til Eulenspiegel 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Til, I seriously suggest that you keep a redirect from your user page to your talk page. Or, redo your signature so that it links directly to your talk page. It is a bit of an inconvenience for other editors not to be able to wiki-link directly to your page. I will set up a redirect; try it for a bit and see how uncomfortable it is for you. -- Avi 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Japheth

Hi Til,

Thanks for your correction about the redirects, and your encouragement to create them. Out of curiosity, how did you choose your username? Are you a trickster in real life, or just interested in medieval legends?

Neelix 17:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More like the latter...! Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, old friend

እንዴት ነህ (ነሽ?), ፈቃደ? የት ሄድክ/ሽ? ለምን ስምህ/ሽ ቀየርክ/ሽ? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ታድያስ ዮምዬ ደህና ነህ! የበፊት ስሜን ከዚህ እንግሊዝኛ ዊኪ የተውኩት በቀድሞው ውይይት ገጼ ላይ ይገለጻል። ለመሆኑ እኔ እንደ ሆንኩ በምን አውቅክ? ቅቅቅ... አሁን በተለይ አማርኛ ዊኪፔድያ ነው ማዘጋጀት የሚሻ! ብቅ አትልምን ወይ? Til Eulenspiegel 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be called Ezra in Islam and not Uzair or Uzayr for the same reason why the Islamic view of Abraham article is not called Ibrahim I do think Uzair and Uzayr should redirect to it though also can you add the future article to the template for the prophets of Islam as he is considered a prophet by some Muslim authorities--Java7837 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I created the article Islamic view of Ezra--Java7837 15:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Judaism is named after the country Judea not Judah son of Jacob as is commonly thought--66.143.245.129 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthemoessa

Hi! I created a page called Anthemoessa. It's about the island of the Sirens. http://en.wikipedia.org/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotation

Hi. Thanks for providing a link to for the canon of the Oriental Orthodox Church. Can you please provide the exact quote from the article you've linked to. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks --Aminz (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Til, It is not a matter of "assuming good faith", I am sure you didn't make that up, but I just want to be 100% sure that a confusion has not happened. Best, --Aminz (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Just a warning that User:HisTruthsetsfree is a total newbie, so try and give him a bit of help at Noah's Ark if you can. Also, havea a look at his summary of the story of Noah - it might make a good short summary for the article lead, with just a little fixing of tone. Adam Cuerden 05:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuneiform Law

Just wanted to thank you for cleaning up the page.WikiHistoryEditorGuy (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ethiopia

Hi, I noticed that you are involved in an edit war over one section of this article. Unfortunately, you are in danger of violating the rule described at WP:3RR -- which could have unfavorable repercussions for you. I'm not taking either side in this dispute, but this is past the point where everyone involved should sit down & discuss this edit. I strongly urge you to talk with the other people in this dispute. If no consensus can be reached, the best next step to take would be to open an Request for Comment & solicit outside opinions on the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Selassie

Thanks for the heads up, I have now cited the uncontroversial material that the fact tags demanded be cited. The Christafari POV (to put it one way) will always come up re HIM, I guess, as these folk believe strongly and like to use wikipedia to express that belief. But really, regardless of one's beliefs re HIM, this kind of material has no place in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And greetings - I have offered to mediate on the cabal page at - if you have any problems with that, please let me know. If not, I have left you some homework :) docboat (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

Interesting choice - put to death for mischief-making, but inspired my favourite piece of Strauss. My son is a horn player :-) Guy (Help!) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Karen and others

For the Kuki Chin see Bnei Menashe - from the talk page I gather this article generates a litle heat among those who follow it. It really needs a proper bibliography - I have a bok at home caled The Ten Lost Tribes or something similar which is by an academic who's actually done a fair bit of fieldwork, but our article relies on on-line material. Incidentally, I also visited the Jewish synagogue in Yangon on my latest trip there - no Kuki Chin, but this old British-era Jewish comunity, now slowly dying out in this backwater of 21st century Asia, is fascinating in its own right.

For the Karen, I think the bok I read all those years ago must have ben Henry Ignatius Marshall's "The Karen People of Burma", 1922. Marshall was a believing Baptist, and rather too ready to acept any evidence that the Bible was right. It's now available in modern reprint by White Lotus, a Bangkok publishing house specialising in making old works on Southeast Asia available to a modern audience - it has a useful litle preface by Anders Baltazar Jorgensen, of whom I've never heard, but it was writen in 1997 and so possibly Jorgensen has other works which might be relevant. PiCo (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bible knowledge in America

It wasn't me who said biblical knowledge is shallow in America, it was George Gallop - see "The battle of the books", The Economist, Dec. 19 2007., about halfway down the article. This is really quite alarming stuff - 4 bibles per home, and they don't seem to read them! What are they actually doing with them? PiCo (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 12 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noel Dyer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I edited it too but you started it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noel Dyer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi, I've blocked you for 12 hours to prevent you from edit warring. John Reaves 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Til Eulenspiegel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did nothing to deserve to be blocked, other than to report another user who definitely violated 3RR after I warned him. I very carefully made sure I did not violate 3RR, I never received any warning that I was going to be blocked for any reason whatsoever, and this block seems to be based on pure whim, rather than on any actual policy or rule that exists. The lesson I am gathering from all this is that sometimes, it simply does not pay to report others who openly scoff at the laws. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not the same as 3RR - you were clearly engaged in an edit war over the template as was the other editor. Both of you were blocked for 12 hours. It takes two to edit war, you should both take this matter to the talk page instead of discussing it via edit summaries and continued reversion. Gwernol 13:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Til Eulenspiegel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In case you haven't noticed, I have attempted to resolve the matter on the discussion page. I have warned the user who broke 3RR. I was very careful not to violate any rules to get myself blocked. I received no warning whatsoever. I was blocked anyway, on a mere whim, not for any rule violation. I am always 100% careful to cross every T and dot every I for you people at all times, and nevertheless I am still punished as any common transgressor. This type of unfair tactic is what makes me, and so many other useful contributors, get real disgusted with wikipedia, real fast. I am starting to realize now that wikipedia deserves the reputation it has for unfairness and special prerogative of the few, and I now ask myself why I have wasted so much time contributing and improving so much.

Decline reason:

When one party reverts 4 times and one reverts 3 times, blocking both users is within the blocking administrator's discretion. Please use WP:3O or another dispute resolution resource available to resolve this issue rather than continuing to revert. — B (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To User:B

User B, thank you for mentioning 3O on the talk page of the disputed template, I have actually already mentioned 3O twice on that discussion page as a solution, but I cannot fill out the 3O request because I am blocked now. Can you please solicit some third opinions about whether this template needs to be right justified, or should remain centred? I would appreciate it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the only dispute centering? From the edit summaries, it looked like order was the main disagreement. I can give you an opinion right now on centering - it looked hideous. ;) In all seriousness, if there is a dispute beyond centering the template, I don't know enough about the issue to document the dispute well. Your block should expire in about 3.5 hours (if, after 3 hours and 23 minutes from now, you get a message that you are blocked, it is a result of an autoblock, that an admin will need to manually remove). You can make the request yourself after it expires, but please refrain from reverting the template until there are some other viewpoints offered. If there is a relevant WikiProject, you may also want to make a request for opinions there. --B (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

B, the template has existed since 11-06 and its creator clearly intended it to be a normal type of centered template that you find near the bottom of an article with related topics like a "see also". If you are reading an article about a Sumerian king, all it does is list the other Sumerian King articles for easy reference. The majority of these articles are stubs. There is no need to have such a list in the upper right hand corner like an infobox, and Sumerophile's repeatedly moving it there, which causes all the templates to run down the right hand margin three times longer than the actual text itself, eg this diff, seems to be based on some misunderstanding or confusion between infoboxes (vertical) and reference boxes (horizontal). Now just for a good example, look at the article Reggae. There are BOTH types of boxes there, a vertical infobox in the upper right, and a horizontal reference box near the bottom. There is no reason on earth why a list of Sumerian kings should be made to look like an infobox, it belongs in a reference box. But Sumerophile, a new user about a week old, continually reverts to his preference single-handedly without regard to what I or any other previous editors who worked on the template might think. He will not listen to reason, and his arguments don't make sense. This is a case on a lot of editing time and now block time taken up trying to clean up behind one hard-headed newbie. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop edit waring

I see you have resumed your edit war on Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer. Please stop. You will not be issued further warnings. Continued reversion or other edit warring on Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer will result in you being blocked from editing. Gwernol 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So he is allowed to freely wreck the centering on that template once again, but I have to leave it like that? Have you seen what this is doing to the affected articles? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I left the exactly the same warning on this talk page - it takes two to edit war, you both need to stop. Gwernol 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI Thread

I've left an additional comment on the ANI thread you started. It looks like you are perhaps looking for dispute resolution, if it doesn't seem like you can resolve your differences over the categories and templates on your own. You might consider looking at the WT:TEMPLATE talk page to see if you can find someone who can weigh in that is a template expert. 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the corrections, Til! It looks we're interested in same topics! PS- Good username!:) Andranikpasha (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated the Kabbalistic/Rasta tree of life

Hello,

I deleted my post from the rastafari page and am putting it here for your direct consideration. Sorry for the confusion.

Kabbalistic Tree of Life colored to illustrate cannabis

Hello,

I deleted my post from the rastafari page and am putting it here for your direct consideration. Sorry for the confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Kabbalistic_tree_of_life_plus_hemp.png

I submitted this image to a few othe articles for consideration. It is an illustration of the paths leading to tiferet on the kabbalistic tree of life -looks like cannabis. This could be related to kaneh bosem and Bob Marley's view of the tree of life, so I think it has a shot of avoiding POV.

Also, as a side note for this specific page, the freemasonry section does not want it listed as "the stone that the builders refused". So don't try it. =)

I welcome any and all feedback and will do whatever I can to support this fine wikicommunity. Thanks and have a great day/night --TaylorOliphant (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is has no "shot" at all unless you have a published source relating it to the article topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the Kabbalistic Tree of life colored to highlight a cannabis leaf shape. Kabbalah is a facet of esoteric judaism and christianity which like other facets of esoteric judaism and christianity have a mode of pointing to cannabis as an important plant and/or the Tree of Life.

So, it is related to the rastafari movement via the rastafarian view of the Tree of Life and the rasta/christian/jew connection. Although, I don't want to "shop this image around" so I will delete this post within seconds of notice if it annoys anyone.

As a quick reference Kabbalah is that "religion" that Modonna is into, you may have heard about it in the news. It has a lot of well known members and is realated to all the abrahamic religions as far as I can tell, but it is almost entirely publically known to relate to judaism only. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Actually I think I will delete this post tonight. I have this image a few other places and I don't want to make waves. The other places are more important. Cheers--TaylorOliphant (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

HIM

Happy to engage you on this, when I get the chance. Just remember to be civil.

"Rastafarianism", and the acceptance of his death

I believe this source may help assert that some variants of Rasta deny his death:

I don't know much about what these scholars call Rastafarianism. I'm more interested in the Ethiopian Emperor than the religious movement. Please don't get defensive; I'm sure the article would benefit from our working together. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about our current trouble at Haile Selassie I? I'm already close to just saying, forget Good Article status, this isn't worth the frustration. I can't shake the impression that Squeak just wants to debate and argue, rather than to actually improve the article; maybe that's just because I've run into such people in the past. Am I being unreasonable? DBaba (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Contributions to the article "Sumer"

Hello, I'd just like to say thank you for helping to improve and maintain the quality of the Sumer article. Keep up the good work. Nico (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Autobiography

I'll remember to ask you first before I do any more legwork! Thanks! :o) DBaba (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sumer

A template for specifically removing citations I know not of, however, you may add a personal reminder to his/her talk page that it violates WP:CITE and WP:RS. You could also add {{subst:uw-unsourced1}) or {{subst:uw-nor2}). They might be helpful. Just change the close parenthesis to a bracket before you add. I'll still keep an eye on it. Also, did you try WP:RFC yet? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I still don't mind offering any help. My suggestion would be to request a third opinion at WP:3O or WP:RFM. However, from what I've seen I don't really see accommodation/consensus in the near future. WP:ANI is always an option and it's always good to get admin eyes on a situation. If you decide to go that route I'll be sure to give my opinion/analysis of the incident after an admin has taken the helm or offered a suggestion. I wish I could take further actions beyond simple recommendations and attempts at communication though. Cheers dude. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: History of Sumer

I'm trying to find out why this is not showing up on the RfC list. Both of you are getting very incivil -- which is why I suggested that you both take a break from this article. At the moment I won't be of any help with the article, since my Sumerian history is very rusty, so I can't really comment on anything in the article. Don't worry, the article will still be there a few days -- or weeks -- from now. (And it won't harm Misplaced Pages if it has incorrect information on it: it wouldn't be the only article with that problem.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? Or point to where you have collected them? -- llywrch (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at the material he is clearly pushing the line, but it's not like an Admin can drop a block on him like a 16-ton weight & make him stop. (That's an allusion to Monty Python, not a suggestion to commit violence.) Further, Wisdom89 has been watching this & gave him at least one warning; if that doesn't make a difference in this guy's behavior, I doubt my talking to him will. (At least he's logged out from Misplaced Pages for the moment.) Until whatever is broken with the RFCbot is fixed (it's still not updated the History RFC list), I'd suggest taking the bit about his disgreement over Kramer being a reliable source to WP:RS/N. Frankly, I'd accept speculation from Kramer about Sumer sooner than a careful reasoned argument from most intelligent & knowledgable Wikipedians. -- llywrch (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that an Admin have only two tools to manage behavior with: talking to a person -- or blocking; nothing in between. And if an Admin blocks a person who doesn't think the block is justified, they'll try to ignore it -- create new accounts, play whack-a-mole with Admins. And unless one Admin has the support of other Admins, it'll be just a different version of what you are experiencing now. That's why I suggested WP:RS/N; if you can convince folks there, it'll make more of a difference than getting a single crank Admin -- like me -- your side. -- llywrch (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Sumer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Printer222 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel -- you asked for a fresh set of eyes on the page, and I am among several trying to provide it. But your uncivil behavior is making it very hard to make progress. Regardless of what wrongs Sumerophile may or may not be doing to you or to the article, please try to not jump in to the Talk page discussion. Clearly you set Sumerophile off, and vice versa. Give us a chance to talk him down. If he's not reachable, that will be clear soon enough. But you are undermining your own position dramatically with your interjections. Why don't you put your energy into WP:3O or WP:RFM as Wisdom89 has suggested? I think that's a great idea. Msalt (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

==Please do not revert the changes. The CORE facts are wrong. There were no Black or African Americans at the protest. It was being made by Students For A Democratic Society SDS and they were White Caucasian usually Jewish Socialist / Communist with names Like Abbey Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. The center for this was NYU and Columbia and headquarteres in the Bowery. Deletionists are watching this page and will delete the inaccurate info or lock the page.

24.44.191.252 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert

Why do stuff like that? You see I pound an incredible amount of work into that entry, and you make these snide reverts without comment. For someone who seems to have convinced himself that he knows something about Haile Selassie, you have a remarkably poor command of diplomacy and civility. It's rude, and it's graceless, Til. I will not come down to your level and revert you back: I'd much prefer to see you undo your own revert and restore my version, or at least redo your own edit with a friendly explanation. DBaba (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really appreciate it, Til. Thanks! DBaba (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Romanework

Yes, I was thinking I should talk to you about that. First off, this is an outstanding little book, with a great wealth of footnotes. Unfortunately, it probably won't resolve the mystery to your satisfaction!

That note appears in a footnote. The Emperor mentions her death, and the footnote says: "His daughter by an unknown young woman who died in childbirth, Romane Work was married to Dej Bayene Merid. After he had been killed, Romane Work and her three children were exiled. One child died, and only Samson and Merid returned to Ethiopia."

Footnote offers two sources, a 1992 interview with Ato Tafere Seifu, and J.R. Rich's genealogy.

I should tell you, I really trust this little book. Just about every single personality mentioned in the Emperor's recollections has a detailed footnote, and sometimes the footnotes even offer corrections of names and dates which the Emperor, in rare cases, mistakenly recorded. Too bad there's not more info on the subject. Only other reference to speak of is a footnote describing the princess as the daughter of "another liaison". Cheers, DBaba (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Fine, I could use the wiki-break. But, be advised that as it stands, it is VERY probable that this will resume the very moment the Aratta or History of Sumer article is unlocked — because Sumerophile still does not acknowledge that quoting a book about minerals, and an atlas, to "prove" his theories about where Aratta may or may not have been located, constitutes an Original synthesis policy violation. I myself have been pointing this out to him numerous times for the past two weeks, and User:Msalt has also, as I have now fully reproduced at Talk:Aratta; and Wisdom89 even warned him on his talkpageFeb. 27 (later blanked). Note that he never actually responds in any way except to bald-facedly deny that he is committing any SYN. Since he has consistently refused to respect other editors, including those who specialize in what constitutes references, and those who have previously collaborated on these articles, I'm afraid it is going to take someone with a little more persuasion, if you don't want this just to continue in exactly the same manner it has been. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources to be added to article, with page numbers

• Note: These are all the same prominent scholars who have published their translations of the Sumerian Epic, "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta"; no more qualified and reliable sources than these can possibly be found:

• Samuel Kramer, 1963 The Sumerians, p. 275 (locates Aratta betwen Urmia and Caspian, Iran; his 1952 translation had suggested Luristan)
• Georgina Herrmann, 1968 Lapis Lazuli: the early phases of its trade, in Iraq p. 54 (locates Aratta nr. Caspian Sea, Iran)
• Sol Cohen, 1973, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, p. 55-61 (identifies Aratta with combined Hamadan-Nahavand-Kermanshah-Sanadaj areas, Iran)
• Yousef Majidzadeh, 1976 The Land of Aratta, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35, 105-114 (located Aratta nr. Shahdad in Kerman province, Iran; same expert now investigating Jiroft, Iran as potential site)
• J. F. Hansman, 1978 The Question of Aratta, JNES 37, 331-336 (locates Aratta at Shahr-i-Sokhta)

--Til Eulenspiegel 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ge'ez letters

Referring to your reversion of my change to the article on abugidas, I take issue with the notion that the "correct" spelling of a target language of letter names or terms from a source language calls for the user of symbols that don't exist in the target language. In English, we don't write in IPA transcriptions! I disagree with the umlauted a's from the Ge'ez article as well, but since the abugida article referenced that one I thought it at least ought to follow the same convention. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Elamite 7000 B.C.

Hey my Jewish friend, Why do you "undo" my changes even when I'm giving 2 references? Is it unbelievable for you that there was a Civilization before pharaoh in Egypt or Mesopotamia Civilizations? have you seen the movie 10000 BC? pharaoh lives on 10000 BC!!! Is 7000 BC amazing? --Iranway (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1. 1: I am not Jewish. Where did you get that idea?
2. 2: What references? All I saw you do at Elam was put a reference to a wikipedia article in a footnote. I realize you are fairly new, but surely you've realized we can't accept an open-source project that anyone can edit as a Reliable source. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I wrote 2 sources. How about the other one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranway (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice the second ref, but am looking at it now. I'm not sure that would meet the definition of WP:RS either, it appears to be just a video. A scholarly paper of some kind would be preferable, but even then, because this information contradicts the information already in the article, it would be better to have a discussion on this at Talk:Elam first, to see what other editors of that page think, as I imagine it will be controversial. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Aratta

Please be more careful with your reverts. Doubtless you had no idea you were restoring Ararat arev's edits, but - watch it. Moreschi (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Ararat arev, but those references have been edit-warred over by Sumerophile who has been continually blanking them for weeks now. This did not begin with the anon user today. Sumerophile has not demonstrated why he feels these all of these reliable references need to be suppressed. The references are reliable for establishing that this POV actually exists in numerous sources, per all of our policies, but Sumerophile apparently doesn't want any word getting out here that this POV actually does exist, as he has unilaterally declared it to be a heresy; reminding one of the old damnatio memoriae. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Aratta

Can you please add back the Ararat statement with Aratta? It has nothing to do with nationalism, Ararat is not a nationalism, its a mountains/land. 75.51.164.173 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate that, and I am trying, but what is needed first is a greater awareness and consensus among more editors, of the bias going on there. This is how wikipedia quickly gets divorced from reality. The reality is: Anyone researching Aratta outside of wikipedia can quickly discover that many scholars have speculated as to its possible location being not only in every corner of Iran, but also in adjoining areas like the Caucasus and Afghanistan. The current wikipedia version of reality is: only those scholars who place it in Iran can be mentioned; sources from India or Armenia cannot be mentioned, and references to scholars with Indian or Armenian last names seem to be disqualified a priori. As you have already seen, nearly any account who treats Armenian authors as significant, quickly gets lumped into one nebulous "Ararat Arev" without question or proof, and is conveniently blocked; I have witnessed this going on for well over a year. I suspect the real reason is because Armenian records go back for so many millennia, they are de facto a heresy that must be rooted out and left unmentioned to any would-be revisionist, to whom they are obviously a stumbling-block. Same with Kurdish authors, Assyrian-Aramaean authors, Hungarian authors, and records of just about any people today who have been writing down the things they see around them for a very long time. This war on access to information actually dates back to Soviet times, and the pretext is always cries of "nationalism" (considered an evil to be surreptitiously rooted out according to "global socialism"), but the freedom of internet and wikipedia are at least definite signs that this mentality is seriously starting to outlive itself. It's almost as if every Armenian historian who ever wrote, has been lumped into a single banned account and reverted from many relevant articles on sight. But I am strongly considering raising these points at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Armenia on their behalf -- even though I am not Armenian myself, I am just fascinated and would like to learn more about some things and am finding it unnecessarily difficult. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Case

Have you tried either WP:3O or WP:RFC? Seddon69 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I sure have, still nothing. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide me with links :)Seddon69 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind me acting as informal mediator? I have opened the case, but prefer to keep discussion on Aratta's talk. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving what's been sourced to another location isn't going to help much (speaking from experience as a mediator). I'd rather we keep this on the talk page, at least for now, where I can address points already made. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's OK too, I suppose.

Part of the reason I didn't want this to be at the case page is the request details. Especially when the conflict is between two editors, often the opposing party will feel like they're in an unwelcome space, which is the total opposite of what I'd like to happen. I'm sure you agree, so at any rate, with permission I'd like to distill the request details. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

←For the moment I'm going to be slightly bold and keep this at talk. I can easily shift discussion over to the case page if need be Xavexgoem (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Israelites did not consider Assyrians Hamitic?

Hi can you give me some sources for your statement: Israelites did not consider Assyrians Hamitic? Our only real source for such, 1st Temple period, is the Tanakh...and you'll find that there are 2 instances of "Asshur" in Beresh't 10 (Genesis 10). This implies a Semitic Asshur (Ber. 10:22) and and a Hamitic Asshur (Assyria) (Ber. 10:11 Ham-Cush-Nimrod-Assyria "from that land Asshur/Assyria went out)". If you can't give a source, then you have no basis for opposing the work of the 4 Israeli archaeologists that made this map (see source for image). If no source, I'll just put the map back on. regards Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want a primary source, try reading some different translations of Gen. 10:11 in the major English Bibles, and compare it with the Hebrew. As for secondary sources, certainly not all are of the view that there were two Asshurs; the traditional and most usual interpretation is that there was only Asshur son of Shem, and the view that there was actually a second "Hamitic Asshur" who founded Assyria I believe is usually regarded as a rather forced and stilted mis-interpretation of the Hebrew of Gen. 10:11 (I will look for the actual sources for this discussion as soon as I get a chance). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This was based on the Hebrew text. The authorial intent of the, I assume, priestly author, was to associate Ham with Israel's enemies. Assyria and Babylon were both viewed as Hamitic based on the only source we have in the Tanakh. The point of the author in Genesis was to indicate that the people who lived in Assyria were over-run -- exterminated? -- by the Assyrian empire which was Hamitic, descended from Cush. What are you credentials, if I may ask. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "Credentials" of wikipedia editors are considered irrelevant on Misplaced Pages, per our founder, Jimbo Wales. What's more important is the credentials of reliable sources, and making sure that one fringe POV is not being pushed against the mainstream. What you just said about a "Hamitic Assyrian empire" overrunning another Assyrian empire, supposedly being the "point of the author in Genesis", would appear to be your Original research interpretation, since I have never once seen any source make such an outlandish claim, and I doubt you could find a reference anywhere for this interpretation of Genesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of a certain modern school of thought that has been all too popular with Bible translators, forces Hebrew Gen. 10:11 to make Assyria founded by Nimrod rather than Asshur, and some even make the resulting presumption that therefore the Israelites actually thought the Assyrians were Hamitic! (which is a real stretch of logic). So far, I have found one detailed, but conjectural discussion of the problem quoted below. However, I realize the source is not considered mainstream and thus his scholarship here will probably be subject to some ad hominem arguments, so I will keep looking for more recent discussions of this same problem. Also this source (Hislop) goes on to conclude that the word "Asshur" is really a verb 'to make strong' and not a proper name at all, which is really a long shot that has little acceptance elsewhere, seeing as Nineveh etc. are known to be in the country of Asshur. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In Genesis 10:11, we find a passage, which, when its meaning is properly understood, casts a very steady light on the subject. That passage, as given in the authorised version, runs thus: "Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh." This speaks of it as something remarkable, that Asshur went out of the land of Shinar, while yet the human race in general went forth from the same land... To obviate such difficulties as these, it has been proposed to render the words, "out of that land he (Nimrod) went forth into Asshur, or Assyria." But then, according to ordinary usage of grammar, the word in the original should have been "Ashurah," with the sign of motion to a place affixed to it, whereas it is simply Asshur, without any such sign of motion affixed.

In researching the sources, I have found many widely different interpretations of Gen. 10:11, and much debate as to exactly what the Hebrew means and how much can be drawn from it. So it certainly seems to be a disputed question going back for centuries. Extrapolating that the Assyrians were ever seen as a Hamitic people, does seem to be at one extreme end of the spectrum, but this should be explained or attributed in the caption if you're going to use that map. Something like 'Ancient Israelite's view of the Middle East, as reconstructed by x and y'. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My purpose for making the map was to present a visual - very literal - picture of the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 based on the work of 4 (four) of the world's leading experts on historical geography, including the current world expert, Anson F. Rainey who is a prof at Tel Aviv University. This same map is published twice. First, in the Macmillan Bible Atlas by Aharoni, Rainey, et al, on p. 21, and also in Rainey's new and updated work "The Sacred Bridge" which is an annotated biblical atlas with the most current research added in notes. You'll find in the Macmillan version, on the same pg 21, a map of Assyria labelled exactly where I placed it and on the same page a map of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. There are three names which appear twice: Havilah (one for Ham and one for Shem), Sheba (one for Ham and one for Shem), and Asshur (one for Ham and one for Shem)...Asshur refers to the region from which the Assyrian Empire originates...having Asshur for Ham and Shem means that both sons of Ham and sons of Shem lived there...not that all the Assyrians were Semites. The nucleus of Shem is clustered around Southern Arabia-Ethiopia (where it is generally believed the Semitic languages originated), thus green. The nucleus of Ham is Egypt-Canaan-Northern Fertile Crescent, thus red. It makes very logical sense...no interpretation involved...the Israelites wrote this passage to show their ethnic origin and that they were not related to the the Assyrians, Babylonians, who descended from Ham's descendant Nimrod, etc...again this is not controversial...? The names appear to suggest place names. This map correctly and literally depicts the Table of Nations...so what's the problem? Most scholars and professors warn their students NOT to use Misplaced Pages precisely because anyone can post anything and edit or delete...I'm trying to make Misplaced Pages better and would appreciate you not deleting a very useful map for understanding the ancient and contemporary Middle East. Isn't the work of 4 archaeologists enough for you? Hkp-avniel (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it must be attributed per the WP:NPOV policy if it is to appear, because these four archaeologists, whatever their credentials, do not possess a monopoly on POV nor on Bible interpretation of disputed verses like Gen 10:11, and contradictory POVs and interpretations may easily be found. When I say "must be attributed", this isn't a big deal. Just reinstate the map as before, and add "according to so-and-so" to the caption, so it doesn't look so much like a bald statement of undisputed fact — when in point of fact it is disputed and controversial to state that anyone thought of Assyrians as Hamitic, and far more so to extrapolate from that presumption, that anyone ever thought "Hamitic Assyrians" had conquered "Semitic Assyrians". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You deleted 5 hours of my work based on undisputed primary and secondary sources. I will now be appealing to third=party editors at Misplaced Pages since you appear to be acting unreasonable. my regrets. Hkp-avniel (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy and coordinators

I'm afraid I've got no real idea of what the motivation of your recent comments is. The purpose of the thread was to ask whether any members of the project wanted to put themselves forward as potential coordinators for the Christianity project who would be able to provide some focus for the content related to the Oriental Orthodox churches. The various issues of the politics of the OO churches themselves is not particularly germane to the subject of the content relating to that subject in wikipedia. Certainly, as many individuals as would want to who would be able and willing to commit some time to working with the content of any of the Christianity projects, and also helping out with the various activities of the main Christianity project, are encouraged to put themselves forward. But, really, very few of the "daughter" projects of Christianity deal with a single church entity, including Catholicism, which deals with the Old Catholic churches as well. It was suggested that maybe we try to get individual coordinators who could focus on a particular church tradition when the idea was first proposed, and I basically was just repeating that. I imagine we will have whoever are elected try to deal with the content as they feel qualified, but there is not and never was any real thought that it was going to be required that every church body be represented, just that the coordinators who might be elected would indicate which project or projects they would help coordinate, in terms of helping with the assessment, review, portals and the like. That's it. The various projects have to date so far managed to varying degrees to avoid overpoliticization, and I think any elected coordinators would try to keep it that way. Membership in a particular church body is not required to have some knowledge of that body, and what is being sought is people knowledgable about a subject first and foremost. If a Catholic Ph.D. in Mormonism put himself forward to work with the Mormonism project, Ithink we'd all welcome him as long as he remained neutral. It would help if I had a clearer idea as to the specific thinking you have behind your recent comments. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just thinking about how notoriously difficult it has been to impose anything like 'coordination' on all the disparate POVs of the various religions in the long run, historically. Getting them all "on the same page" even in little ways for our purposes, sounds like it might be almost an unprecedented feat! Is each Misplaced Pages Project free to come up with its own selection process rules for coordination internally, or is this more like something being handed down from "above"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to once again be talking about things which I basically cannot comprehend. There is no intention of "getting them all on the same page", whatever your own preconceptions might be. I guess I will have to state it explicitly: There is no intention that these individuals will have any extra power, just that they will volunteer to handle management of directly project related activities, like portals, peer review, assessment, and the like. That's all. There is no real intention that the coordinators should have any particular control over content. There may be some slight contact such that, for instance, two portals don't use the same article at the same time, but that's about it. For the most part, though, there isn't any thought of imposition of anything in anyone's thinking except apparently your own. These individuals would have no particular control over content, like I already said. They would just ensure that articles are assessed, reviewed, and the like. That's all. You'll also notice that most of the assessments done for OO have been in fact done by me already. That's about all a coordinator would do. You might want to read the existing guidelines at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators, as I think it might answer some of your questions. And, for what it's worth, the elections would be done by the Christianity project, as they are the body for whom the positions exist. I also note to date that you are about the only person other than SECIsek who has expressed any real reservations about the idea, and you seem to be operating on the basis of it being an attempt at creating some sort of "cabal". That isn't even remotely the case. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add sources

Til, some of your posts are good...but I ask that you add sources/references so I can follow up on your observations directly from the research. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning on Javan

Your recent editing history at Javan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hkp-avniel (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've responded to a request for an outside view of the situation between the above user and yourself at User talk:Hkp-avniel#Outside view by User:PeterSymonds. PeterSymonds | talk 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Akkad

You reverted my entry, citing that the Sumerian King List dates The founding of Akkad to Sargon the Great, however The SKL specifically dates Akkad to just after the great Flood, and cetainly there is mention of the city to far before this, and even is mentioned on the page itself. And since there is no agreed date for the great flood I think it is a little dogmatic of you, and certainly POV, to only "allow" yours on this page. The edit i made was a consensus of what was written before and didn't delete any significant material, so I ask you not to simply revert it agian, but to at least it to a more reasonable format. i see by your page that you are involved in a number of revert wars and I dont think this is helpful activity for anyone. Ciriii (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)