User talk:Til Eulenspiegel

Mentuhotep II

Sorry for the edit conflict about Mentuhotep II's article. I am in the process of writing an extensive section on his mortuary temple. Please don't remove it. Plus I have included in the current version as many of your edits as I have seen just before uploading mine. Iry-Hor (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The lineage Intef III = father of Mentuhotep II and Iah = mother of Mentuhotep II is more than just a flimsy theory: Iah bare the titles of King's mother and King's daughter, so she must have been the mother of Mentuhotep II and the daughter of Intef II. The stele of Tjetjy clearly identifies Intef III as the son of Intef II (see article on Intef II) so Iah was indeed Intef III's sister (at least half-sister through her father). So Mentuhotep II was of royal lineage at least through his mother. Now since it is well known and attested that Iah was Intef III's wife, we have a more than strong evidence that Intef III was in all likeliness Mentuhotep II's father. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not convinced that Intef III was his father. But more importantly, Ian Shaw the expert published RS, is not convinced. (It's not supposed to matter what we wikipedia editors think...) But one thing I can tell you is, there is more to this than meets the eye, with regard to these people. I will be happy if: The POV-pushing word "confirmed" should be toned down to "suggested", "probably" to "possibly", and Shaw's opinion on it ought to be given more prominence (at the least, it belongs in the "Family" section and not really the "Reign" section. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Pyramid Texts

Ah, never mind, I saw the change you made to the Pyramid Texts on my watchlist and assumed you'd simply reverted. I think the changes you made to the article are sufficient, until I can investigate the claim in detail. A. Parrot (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do about Vandals?

User:Thetruth210 vandalised the page at Jah, adding what is assumed to be his name to the article, and then removing tags from it. I would suggest that by the person's choice of username, they made an account for the purpose of vandalising articles related to religion. I'm not sure how to report vandals, though. Do you know? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AIV Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR at Genesis creation narrative

Maybe you need to deal with this at the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian mythology section

Hi Til. I've replied to your tag; please see Talk:Christian mythology. This is one "myth" dispute that I hope can be resolve very quickly. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded yet, I decided to take the initiative of editing the section to address your concerns. I have also removed the tag. If you have issues with the section as it currently stands, please discuss them on the talk page. Best, Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Til, despite all the conflicts we've faced head on, I do appreciate your work. I really appreciated your introduction of "Serfdom" on the Curse of Ham#Serfdom page. That was a great contribution to the article and your additional edits to that subject, while having proper references included. Jasonasosa (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hippie Etymology

Drop me a note when you're ready to take a break, I was making some extensive revisions and wound up in an ec with you--my bad, I should have tagged it with GOCEinuse while I was tinkering. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I bask in the luminance of your expertise expressed in the perfection of your edits. I shall endeavor to not sully your fine work with my paltry contributions. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Elba Tablets

I undid your undo simply because the changes made by the previous editor were contradictory to the sourced texts. It looks like the editor merely changed the phrases to suit his or her preferences and left the citations in place for the appearance of legitimacy. I reverted the vandalism to the previous established consensus. I have no strong feelings about the wording so if you view it as an opinion I would recommend making an edit based on the cited texts and not merely reverting to vandalism. I didn't write the original text which I reverted to I merely made the changes to call attention to the fact the information was not supported by the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.250.34 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold proposal to reorganize Template:Ancient Mesopotamia

I have made a proposal to reorganize Template:Ancient Mesopotamia. See here for the discussion; see here for the actual new draft. Your input is appreciated!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hair colour in the UK

Hi there Til, I'm afraid that I don't agree with your edit here.[1] As far as I'm aware, the only large-scale studies of hair colour across the UK were Beddoe's famous research from the 1860s, and Sunderland's study of army conscripts in 1956. If I remember rightly, they both showed hair colour was lightest in the north and east and darkest (but also reddest) in the south and west. To be honest this whole section of the article is very unstable, and I think it's best if we get rid of most of the uncited material.--Pondle (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability

Sorry for my distraction - and now I simply can't find the page where I voted.......-- Aflis (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In a beginning issue

you mentioned before why all the translations don't say in a beginning but rather in a beginning. If you want my opinion I think that it was changed to in the beginning because the authors couldn't handle the questions behind the idea of "a beginning" which begs the question could there be another beginning. You can find in Job that some translations have changed the words: behemoth and leviathan to alligator or to a rhino. the original translation is not alligator or a rhino but the authors feared what other would think about the names behemoth and leviathan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarhabbaz (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Second opinion on discretionary sanctions". Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

Hi there! Thanks for a Barnstar that you gave me!--_{Mwanaharakati}^(Longa) 07:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know

User:Seb az86556 has opened an ANI discussion about me in relation to Genesis creation narrative. He let some other editors(the ones that agree with him) know about it that were involved in the Genesis discussion. Just thought you should know about it. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

He let many people know. There is no conspiracy against you Zen.--Adam in MO Talk 00:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He notified Mann jess, dougweller, artifexmayhem, and you. What a coincidence, those are the people that agree with him! Zenkai251 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a conspiracy here. He notified me because I had posted to your talk page with the same request he made on ANI moments later, and he notified Dougweller and Adamfino because they were directly involved in the disputes he linked to in his report. It's expected to inform editors involved in the dispute when posting to ANI; there's even a notice at the top of the page. I'll also point out that I was the one user to advocate on your behalf, so claiming bias because I was notified is silly. The ANI discussion was proper, as there were definitely problems which needed to be resolved. I sincerely hope those issues do get resolved, particularly because if they don't, that will now reflect poorly on me.

A substantial problem was collaboration. Please bear in mind that we're all here to contribute positively, so continuing to drag this out as a "me vs them" issue is battleground mentality, and not a step in the right direction. It would be helpful to see this issue drop, and everyone involved move on to productive, collegial editing. In particular, I'd love to see you contribute your knowledge and efforts to new areas for a little while (like we discussed), and in so doing acclimate yourself with the consensus building and dispute resolution process. After some time has passed, and perhaps when the waters are a little tamer, it might then be a good time to get involved with these same editors again, and hopefully by that time all of us can work productively together to improve the encyclopedia. That may take a few months, but I think it will be helpful in the long run.

Hopefully that'll be the end of this back and forth. As always, drop me a line if you have any questions. Best of luck,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I just thought it was a little odd that he didn't notify Til, who was directly involved in the discussion as well. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

FAR Sargon of Akkad

I have nominated Sargon of Akkad for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Curse of Ham

Thanks for being patient and allowing me to edit the article. I guess I've finished now. You can go ahead and do as you see fit - even revert the lot. I don't have it on my watch list. PiCo (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Have you actually read through the Edmund Bordeaux Szekely article? Would you prefer that I just gut it? Nevard (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I've read it, I am one of the past contributors. I don't know if you are new to wp, but the way things work around here is "collaboration" with other interested editors, not unilateral threats of "gutting" an article. If there are disagreements about what the facts are, there is a due process to be followed, which involves the article discussion page for the benefit of all watching editors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed after looking at the history. Which also seems to show a regression in the quality of the article since early 2010. Would you agree that it was better before it was written from the point of view of the myth-writer in question? Nevard (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No I do not agree, and that is a loaded question. Your POV is certainly showing. Note that Szekely still has a significant and dedicated following; we cannot neutrally label him a "myth writer" any more than we can label Joseph Smith, Jr. a "myth writer" (even if we might personally think he was one). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Smith wasn't silly enough to 'find' disappearing documents to translate in some of the most heavily studied collections in Christendom. Are you really saying the credulous writing in the present article is neutral? Nevard (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying your POV is irrelevant, since his claims cannot be compellingly falsified or verified one way or the other. Credulity has nothing to do with it. There are differing POVs here, so we must steer a neutral and carefully descriptive course, without using language that seems to endorse any particular POV on whether his claims are true or false. It's called WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you will be removing the unsupported claim that Szekely studied at the Vatican, and the unsupported claim that there were in fact 'obscure Hebrew and Aramaic texts' which he made an effort to translate, inherent in the statement "Szekely, while studying at the Vatican in 1923, claimed to have translated several obscure Hebrew and Aramaic texts which he said proved the Essenes were vegetarians, and that vegetarianism was prescribed by Jesus." Nevard (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That statement does not imply anything about whether his claim is true or false, nor should it. It does not make any "claim that there were in fact obscure Hebrew or Aramaic texts" or that there were not, nor should it. It is a good example of neutral and careful writing. I see now that it previously read "Szekely claimed that, while studying at the Vatican in 1923, that he had translated..." which I concede may be more neutral, if it is contested that he was ever at the Vatican at all. By the way, have you ever seen the Hebrew text that he published in 1974, claiming it was the original of Book I? I have a copy of it, and I read Hebrew. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Afro Ecuadorian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Calypso, Salsa and Merengue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Template:WikiProject Dacia Invitation --Codrin.B (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

2004 statement signatories who have wp articles

Halton Arp, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, Menas Kafatos, Eric Lerner, Jayant Narlikar, Jean-Claude Pecker, Konrad Rudnicki, Max Whisson*, Tom Van Flandern, Fred Alan Wolf, Franco Selleri, John Hartnett, Robert Zubrin, Harold E. Puthoff, Y. P. Varshni

Barnstar

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Thanks for all your contributions to WikiProject:Christianity related articles! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 02:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Culture of Paraguay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yuca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello :)

Again, thank you for all your help. Also, I was wondering if you could please join the discussion at Talk:Genesis creation narrative. You are a much more experienced editor then I am. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of wikipedia articles are a pleasure to edit and improve. Then there are a few like Genesis creation narrative that are dominated by a hard core of POV editors where any editor (and even any published source) who does not subscribe to their "official hypothesis" is run out on a rail. Every few months, someone new comes along, sees how blatantly one-sided the article is, and is run out on a rail. I have been more than once, and it's a grueling experience trying to communicate with a brick wall that is so closed-minded to anyone else's viewpoint but their own. In the long run, I'm not sure it's worth it. Readers and adherents around the world don't really seem to be turning to such blatant propaganda vehicles to form their doctrines, any more than they have for the past 2000 years. The only thing that's new from the last 2000 years is, now their BS "seems" more accessible to the general public, and less the exclusive purview of a pedagogical would-be elite - but it's the same old BS. Their currency is based on chutzpah.

I can hardly bear to look at that talk page travesty any more, but if there is some kind of poll or RFC, I may be more inclined to drop in. But a good starting point for evidence of other significant views is te bit about the published stance of the Conservative Judaism Movement with regard to Genesis supposed "borrowing" from Babylonian texts. Note that with most other religious texts, a very high standard is held by scholars to establish plagiarism. With this one, it's like "See, they mentioned a dragon - that's close enough!" (Uh, what dragon?! Pure ridiculousness!) The Conservative Judaism scholars in Israel have stated that in their view, it is likely that both Babylonian myths and Genesis go back to a common source, not one copied from the other. And that common source, in their view, is more likely to resemble Genesis, with the Babylonian version being the more corrupted and ideologized form. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I know what you mean. I'm getting sick of the talk page myself. Zenkai251 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It is possible, however I too have had the same experience and am going into a "retreat" until enough users can join forces and overcome the "official hypothesis". Wekn reven ^Confer 19:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your subpage on the use of the almost inherently pejorative term "myth" to describe any world religion. Wekn reven Confer 19:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mopsus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycurgus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?

An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative#RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth" in the academic sense"?. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here. This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Emathus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermione (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited Aegialeus (king of Sicyon), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tethys, Belus and Argus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if

You'd be interested in joining WikiProject Creationism? Just a thought. Wekn reven 17:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Misc

As Pico isn't bothered, I would have removed that myself. But on another issue, you might want to see the last edit of TWIIWT (talk · contribs) at the Tel Dan article which tried to add a link from an image from http://www.giwersworld.org/ (the website of an indefinitely blocked editor). Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

well

hmmmm. Angieowlglass 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your Reggae page reverts

Greetings, Til Eulenspiegel. Regarding your Reggae page reverts, first your most recent undid legitimate, properly summarized, uncontested edits. They have been restored. Please do not summarily revert them out of haste. Second, just because something is cited doesn't mean it is legitimate or meaningful. Have you ever heard that Beatle song? It doesn't remotely resemble reggae music. Hurdy-gurdy or British songhall, perhaps, but the parallel is preposterous. It is certainly not my habit to delete cited material; this, however, I regard as a legitimate instance, given the inapplicability of the claim cited. Yours.Wikiuser100 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your problem? You've been at Wikipedia for five years, made almost 20,000 edits. You're not some green IP addresser. Why do you keep summarily reverting uncontested edits along with one you do? If you're going to be Mr. Rules and Regulations they apply to you as well. I'd like you to go back and restore my uncontested edits, which you are warring on right along with the one you are stubbornly (and, honestly, without being the least bit ad hominum about it, stupidly) waging war against as well. (Have you ever heard the Beatle song? Have you ever heard reggae? Something being "citable" doesn't make it correct, let alone meaningful.)

I will check both the article and this page to see that you have restored the legitimate edits, regardless if you wish to continue to wage an edit war over the one in dispute. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course I have heard reggae, been listening to it avidly for like 30 years. And when someone else added that reference to the Beatles' 1968 song being influenced by reggae beat, I too was skeptical, so I found it on YouTube and indeed I do see a resemblance, especially to some of the other early reggae beats that came out in 1968. What really matters to wikipedia though, is not whether you see a resemblance or I see a resemblance. What does matter is WP:VER, and that an externally published source sees a resemblance. That makes it legitimate for inclusion in some form. And it wouldn't be the first time the Beatles showed their hipness to the latest emerging, yet distant musical styles, that many in their international audience hadn't heard of yet. It can now be told that 'Sgt. Pepper' was similarly influenced by the Mothers of Invention, a new (at the time) California band.

If you still disagree, you can look for a source to be included stating specifically the opposite, otherwise it is uncited opinion verging on OR. As for your other edits, they are not such a big deal, but after 7 years of wikipedia I do not believe there is any obligation incumbent on me to fix 'uncontested changes' after reverting to the last stable version. It might be more considerate of me, since it would take time on my part to sort through your edit diffs. But these aren't any vital fixes or corrections, so I'm not bothered. With regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Followup: I just looked up wp's article for the Beatles' song in question (Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da) and it seems reggae influences are claimed for it, not hurdy-gurdy. Maybe you should take your fight to that page first of all? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Til Eulenspiegel. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Christianity newsletter section

If I remember correctly, I believe you at some point indicated you are associated with one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, maybe the Ethiopian Orthodox Church? I am thinking of maybe starting a section in the next Christianity newsletter, currently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/May 2012, called "I believe." I'm thinking it might be useful to help let editors who aren't as familiar with some Christian groups to get a slightly better, if still abbreviated, understanding of some of these groups. The format might be something like

"I believe
...that (distinctive details on group). I am a (name of adherent of group, like, maybe, "Ethiopian Orthodox Christian.")

If I am right in my assumption above, would you have any interest in maybe writing such a section? John Carter (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that would be:

"I believe that the Messiah has a single, unified nature as both God and man, and not two separated natures. I am an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Christian." Right? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw that one also might cover all of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches; there are no significant doctrinal disputes, and all are in communion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That might work, if there aren't any other distinctive details. But maybe, having just actually looked over the article again, which I didn't yesterday, my apologies, would any of the points in Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church#Distrinctive traits be distinctive enough for inclusion? Also, maybe, depending on how "membership" in the group is internally defined, maybe something like "I am a member of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church" might be a better phrasing. Maybe. Your call, but I hadn't really thought the first post here through before I made it. My apologies for that, BTW. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries... but I think I'd rather stick to my first statement, because the other 'distinctive traits' are not really as significant or central to doctrine or belief.Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

John, in light of the below, I think it would be better if you not use any statement from me. I am withdrawing my willingness to go along with your project. I'm sure your intentions are good. But I have been with wikipedia since the early days. In those days nobody was even allowed to declare what "affiliations" they had, if any. All editors were required to demonstrate that they are strictly adopting NPOV when editing, and not editing on behalf of any given POV. I still think this is a good idea. I always try to make sure all articles end up being more neutral for everyone concerned, regardless of what my personal or private beliefs may be (if any). Also bear in mind that through most of human history, "What beliefs do you follow" was often the last question a person ever heard in this world while a sword was poised over their neck. Even today this happens in some places, and even on "neutral" wikipedia, sadly, the mentality of the "wolf pack" is stigmatize XYZ group, then practice "guilt by association" to the point where alost no one is even willing to admit if they think the world might have been purposefully designed by an intelligent entity. (SO YOU SEE HOW "NEUTRALITY" WORKS ON WIKIPEDIA??? IT'S LIKE GOEBBELS ASKING IF YOU ARE CIRCUMCISED) Thus perhaps you could understand why someone might be reluctant nowadays to comply with such a question, and that many feel it should be a matter between the individual, and his or her conscience, and not involve a third party who believes they were somehow appointed to administer everyone else's conscience. Already someone below has seen this section, concluded that I am "affiliated" with an identifiable group, and trying to buttonhole me with a POV when this should not be happening. So in other words, do not use my name with anything, thank you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rastafarianism

I don't see a talk section dedicated to this?LuciferWildCat (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked through all the archives? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

why do we have human rights?

Discussion: Why do we have to have 'human' rights. Surely, there isnt really any such thing. Its merely a convention that some Americans think they have a right to, America the highest no of murders country in the world - why do they bother having human rioghts on a bit of paper when they deny one another the basic right to life. I mean, why bother. Surely if you recognise society and the law - there is no need to underline it with 'human rights' who gives you the authority to say it should be, certainly not me or on my behalf. I say for my own rights and fuck you bastard. They arent human ones they are mine. Its all far too damn socialistically comfortable for me - even in the most capitalist of countries - the UK, under Conservatism & yes I used a capital C, there is still human rights and a lot of otherwise good folk caught up with clamouring for them. Is it merely some ruse used by those who have power, real power, to give us proles something to occupy our brain cell,(NB collective) with, when really if you knocked on another's door, they would wish to deny you a cup of water.

Ghost Dance

Perhaps, if you're so much more informed about the subject than I, you'd care to respond to the actual questions on the talk page, rather than just concerning yourself with hurling insults and maintaining the importance rating on some Wikiproject? If anyone cared to actually respond to questions and/or improve the article, rather than worrying about technicalities like that, it might have kept its Good Article rating three years ago. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, please accept my apologies for that knee-jerk reaction. I really don't care what the wikiproject rating is all that much, so if you really need to lower it, I won't rv you again. I was just initially struck by the summary comment you made that "nobody" knows what it is. Which of course is probably an exagerration, because the article should hopefully inform at least 'some' readers roughly what it is/was. I'll take a look at the talkpage questions soon when I get a chance and see if I know any of the answers. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Erishum I

I think I'll do Erishum I to Erishum II and let somebody else do Shamshi-Adad and his descendants. I ordered Veenhof's book from some company in Turkey 4 weeks ago and it arrived in the mail yesterday. It only covers KEL A to D so runs out before the end of Shamshi-Adad. Somebody already added limmus to some of the later monarchs, but they're using a weird "personal" chronology. I thought I'd stick to the middle for the limmus and quote short and middle for the kings' reigns. What do you think? BigEars42 (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There was some French guy who published a *pdf monograph with all the names from beginning to end and trying to prove it matched the ultra low. It made sense to me, so I alluded to it on my userpage, but I forget his name off the top of my head. I have the pdf somwhere on my computer though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Looked it up, it's G Gertoux Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Note I don't agree with all his conclusions about everything, but his limmu work is fairly impressive. You can find his website at chronosynchro.net by the way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Rudes

The reason I mentioned Hitler at Powhatan language was simply that his was the first name of a deceased person that popped into my mind. There is, of course, no comparison in morality between him and Dr. Rudes. But the point remains that in an encyclopedia we do not place "the late" in front of the names of dead people or else all dead people must have "the late" placed before them. It's simply not encyclopedic. --Taivo (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I'll let it go this time. It, just, I would have picked King Alfred, or someone slightly less nefarious, though...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I would, too, but I had just read something about the end of WWII and that name was "in the air". Of course, it gets Godwins Law out of the way fast :) --Taivo (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Police brutality discussion

Hi, I notice that you contributed to the Cfr dicussion concerning Category Police brutality in England. If I read you correctly your reasons for maintaining the status quo seem to be a) Keep it because there is no alternative name and b) There are lots of categories with that name and c) It is wrong to pretend it does not exist as a phenomenon. Then in your second post you appeared to modify your position somewhat but did not specify that clearly.
In view of the fact that there has now been a suggestion for an alternative name, and considering your apparent change of mind, would you be prepared to review the discussion and your contribution to it making your current view explicitly clear? If you choose to reply, please do so on the page where the Cfr discussion is taking place. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 07:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dudeism

I see you have edited some of the Dudeism pages adding that it is a "mock religion", not to be all reactionary, but are you sure mock is appropriate? It would indicate that Dudeism is parodying another belief, when it is not actually trying to be a tongue in cheek of anything. It is a philosophy, more akin to Humanism than to other "religions". I can understand the thinking there, but Dudeism really is a stand alone on its own grounds flavor of philosophy. Maybe not a religion in the classic sense, but not a parody of one either.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revgms (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I should let you know to be fair, that I brought this up (the question of whether Dudeism is a religion) at WP:FTN, and two sources came up portraying it as a "mock religion", so I added them in. Yes, it does seem to have more the hallmarks of a "philosophy" in many respects. But if it is going to present itself as a "Church" complete with "priests", then it is at the least parodying organized religion, if it is not itself one. So I think the description "mock religion" found in the sources is accurate. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I get that the structure appears to be a parody of some established religions, but would you consider Zen Buddhism to be a religion? Some Dudeists claim Dudeism is a stripped down, back to its purest form, of Taoism, I find it to be more a Zen Buddhism minus the ritual. Dudeism's core concepts are same as Taoism or Zen Buddhism, it is a "middle path" religion/philosophy, it is just an updated form of such, a modern post hippie form. I have discussed this at length with Tetsugen Bernard Glassman from the Zen Peacemakers, Dudeism is officially engaged with the Zen Peacemakers.

A fair portion of the more than 150,000 ordained Dudeist are former or practicing Buddhists, and Buddha taught that to relate the Dharma one should relate it in the manner of it's time and place. That's Dudeism, the same kind of understanding put in to the parlance of its time and place.

Oh, just saw the new edit, okay, seems fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revgms (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Israel etc

Hi. Perhaps 'based on'. My 'According to,' was certainly thoughtless in its reflexive haste. 'Based on' isn't, since the only information that could suggest that, one of many, which we have on those two kingdoms, comes from the Bible, which is not regarded as particularly reliable by many ancient historians. In reverting, we only change one problem (my gloss) for another, the original gloss, which states as a fact what is known to be an unverified hypothesis. So it can hardly stand that way. Suggestions? Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the books I read, there is all kinds of other evidence that Israel really existed, yet for centuries there has been a campaign started by their enemies that continues today to erase them from history and remove all mention of them as much as possible. So you have your books, and we have our books, and you assert some kind of magical priority for your books. That's about all there is to say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, sorry. Where did I say Israel did not exist? And who on earth are you referring to with that we. And what right do you have to imply I am an enemy of Israel for trying to make a logical dialogue on maps, fictional or otherwise,? Go read Donald B.Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, which discusses Judah and Israel with impeccable coverage of the scholarly sources, and then, since that's the kind of position I think reasonable, get back to me, civilly if possible. In anticipation of WP:AGF courtesy in reply. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I love questions like "What right do you have to imply ___?" because that means you are getting indignant about something that I didn't actually state, but that you seem to have inferred. In other words, you are playing me too close when you judge me not for what I have said, but for what according to you I am supposedly thinking when I said it. In fact, your inference is wrong. My statement that enemies of Israel have been trying to erase her memory for many centuries, is undeniably and demonstrably true irrespective of anything you may have said or done in your entire lifetime. Thus I stand by that statement. And I'm no more likely to take the time to read one of "your books" than you are to read one of "our books" in other words, "our" being those books that do not attempt to deny the historical presence of Israel in the area as much as possible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• (1) Editing wikipedia from sources, as an awesome wikipedian should know, means using the criteria set forth in WP:RS. When a colleague asks you a question, and you reply that he or she has books, but a community, we have other books, and that the former has no magical priority over the latter, you are not using wikipedia as a guideline, you are making a factional distinction on RS.

You are also making an awesome assumption, among other things, that your interlocutor is unfamiliar with your (community's) books, but that is just an observation. I hope you can clarify at least what your words mean in terms of RS

• (2) 'enemies of Israel have been trying to erase her memory for many centuries'. Israel has three basic meanings. (a) The modern state, (b)a Biblical kingdom, and (c) the people of Israel.

Since you qualify her 'enemies' as people engaged in erasing her memory for many centuries, it can't refer to (a). If it means (b) who are the enemies of Israel who, for centuries, have been trying to erase the memory of the Biblical kingdom of Israel? In anticipation, hoping for a guide to my perplexities.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Imperial Rome, for example, declared the names "Israel" and "Judah" to be abolished forevermore with a damnatio memoriae, following the Bar Kokba revolt. So have many other "authorities", both before and since. For some reason this goal has been frustrated, though. In spite of what the Romans wanted, the term "Israel" is still in use today to refer to a, b, and c, in other words "all of the above". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No. You wrote:-

'According to the books I read, there is all kinds of other evidence that Israel really existed', yet for centuries there has been a campaign started by their enemies that continues today to erase them from history and remove all mention of them as much as possible.

You are actually confusing in that one sentence (a) Israel as a nation, be it Biblical or modern, and (b) Israel as a people (their enemies/ erase them).

You twice use the present perfect continuous tense which means the 'campaign by their enemies' is something that started centuries, not millenia ago, and is continuous to the present day. You say you read books on this which I don't know about. Please give me references. That's a reasonable request, surely.

Imperial Rome is not an example, (I have a background in classics, so I'd be curious to know what books there I haven't read) because the very Rome that destroyed Judaea under Titus gave Josephus citizenship and hospitality while he composed his Antiquities of the Jews, which was in Greek, conserved by scribes in the Roman empire and conserved the memory of the nation of Israel. The later Bar Kochba incident is irrelevant, since I am asking you for books you say I haven't read about the enemies of Israel who erase its memory. The name of Jerusalem was changed, but the name Judah/Judaea returns in Latin and Greek usage immediately after Hadrian's death. There was no erasure of the memory of Israel practiced in Rome by a systematic excision of material or censorship of books, or a murdering of the scribes, so that simply cannot be what you originally meant. I'm serious about this. That first reply had all the hallmarks of a WP:NPA violation, so I'd prefer to sort this out here.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And you responded by indignantly asking me "What right do you have to imply... ____". So if you want to prosecute me for an "implied" NPA violation that you apparently "inferred", be my guest. Now, here is another example that I just learned about today, from reading discussion by others on Talk:Hebrew language, of the same harebrained mentality, that one often encounters in history: I didn't even know about this one myself, but apparently in the years 1930-1931 the Stalin regime and the Sovet Union took rather drastic steps to forbid anyone in their jurisdiction from ever studying the Hebrew language. It was obviously too late to erase the name 'Israel' from all the history books at that point, but not too late to try to do away with the Hebrew language. The only problem is, whenever you say "Nobody is allowed to study this language, but we can't tell you why not", it's a sure thing that someone is going to have to study that language. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clear from your comment here and above that by 'enemies of Israel' you mean anti-semites - you appear to have reverted a simple edit ('according to the Bible' for a map of two ancient kingdoms). 'Enemies of Israel', your last two comments admit, refers to Israel in senses (a) (b) and (c), the last being the Jewish people. Using 'enemies of the Israel= Jewish people' to justify a revert against another editor suggests I am antisemitic. So now that you've clarified this, I'll make a formal complaint. Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here.

I would argue that you have an extremely weak case against me indeed, if you have to make that many "leaps of logic" to build it, just to be able to accuse me of "implication" "inference" "innuendo" etc. There are massive violations of NPA going on all over the place on a daily basis, and yet it seems you want to waste everyone's time prosecuting me for perceived "innuendo" "implication" and "inference". I could claim that you are baiting me on my own personal talkpage with the intention of going over my words with a fine toothed comb, looking for something, anything you can use to entrap me and restrict my freedom of speech. I could raise a complaint about your behaviour, except my conscience would then bother me because that would be awfully PETTY of me. You are hereby disinvited from chatting on my talkpage again, and I will soon remove this entire section for aesthetic reasons. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, let me get this straight. You advised me to read one of "your" books, that apparently argues that the Exodus took really place in the 600s BC, "long after King David". Now you act like, not only is that hypothesis completely uncontroversial, undisputed, and indisputable, but you seem absolutely incredulous that anyone could possibly think anything different, and you want to haul me into "wikiquette" for me suggesting that I don't subscribe to this theory, or that I read other books that say diferent. (which really has little to do with my single revert, or with any content dispute on any article) Are you serious??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I refrained from responding earlier because of the disinvitation (delightful world I'm glad is being reintroduced), which is your right.

I didn't advise you to read one of my books. I cited one of many books which would, wered you familiar with it, have given you a precise idea of where I come from, in approaching ancient history, not as an enemy of Israel, but simply as a student of history.

I don't understand what you mean by my books or our books. There are books, period. As to your specific query, Redford says nothing of the sort. His conjecture is that Israelitic traditions conserved a old tradition, associated with the name Jacob, of nomadic pastoralists moving to Egypt, where they prospered, encountered hostility, and returned to the Levant. He, like many, hazards a guess that Canaanite memories associated this with the Hyksos period. When the Exodus account we have was composed by the post-Exilic editor he employed toponyms that do not go further back in time than the 26th dynasty.

I was not underwriting Redford's synthesis of the state of the art, nor his various interpretations. It is a standard, thorough easy to read though technically detailed coverage of the controversies and the era. I mentioned it simply because, like myself, he has no reason to doubt the existence of a northern kingdom nor the kingdom of Judah, which is what you assumed I was doing. By saying 'according to the Bible/Tanakh' I was not denying that these chronicles have a huge amount of indispensable data for antiquity. I was simply noting that, as a doctrinal history with a pervasive deeply-dyed post-exilic theology determining the way folk-memories, palace records, and traditions were redacted, harvested, rejected or re-elaborated, its presentation of events is not impartial. Neither is Thucydides, Herodotus, Ō no Yasumaro or the 'Confucius' who was thought responsible for the Spring and Autumn Annals.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, but Redford's WP article as it currently stands, says his book argues that the Exodus took place in the 600s BC, "long after King David". That may be a mischaracterization on WP's part. But I'm sure I don't have to point out that there are other views, and this is a controversial subject. There are definitely differing schools of thought. It is well known that there is something known as the "minimalist" school of thought. This is a controversial viewpoint, and one that does not enjoy a monopoly among scholars, although occasionally we see proponents of minimalism who act as though or pretend that their POV does enjoy a monopoly, and nothing else counts or is deserving of mention. That is the type of bias I am against, because I like to see all schools of thought represented fairly, not just one or the other. I will apologize now if I ruffled your feathers, but as there isn't any real content dispute between us at the moment (and my original revert was mistaken anyway, because I was confusing Ammon and Moab with the Amorite kings Sihon and Og) I am not sure there is that much to discuss about making sure my own opinions are acceptable enough. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations in scholarship bend and twist according to the state of argument, so I don't think it correct to speak of POV as we do in wiki. Most of these articles are extrenmely hard to edit (illegible to read, at least for mne) because they assume that there are two points of view at the most. There are dozens of nuanced positions, most things are contentious, and we have a low tolerance of complexity in here. All verse and chapter of books in antiquity carry a load of controversy or hermeneutic complexity.

Thanks for leading me to the Redford article. That was certainly poorly written and I can now understand some misapprehensions. I have fixed it, with the relevant ref, which it took me some hours to uncover in my library. I'd misplaced it. My principle is, one should edit wikipedia, but never read it or cite it unless the article is thoroughly au courant with the relevant contemporary scholarship, since it is mostly unreliable, especially on anything historical. I noted the Ammon/Moab thing. There are numerous discrepancies between the map we discussed and, to name but one, the map you get on The Penguin Atlas of World History, 1978 p.36, which actually includes Moab in The Kingdom of Israel, and Edom in the Kingdom of Judah, while at the same time denying the Sea of Galilee a place in the Northern Kingdom etc. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching my oversight at Dunmore's War! SeoMac (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Noach

Thanks for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha). I appreciate your input. --Dauster (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Til, I want to say thank you for your input also. I absolutely agree with your comment. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello 2

Hi Til Eulenspiegel, I wanted to message you personally to understand your view on that matter of the redirect of "Turks". Do you actually support the claims of this new user, "User:Shamans of Tengri", who has not provided any sources whatsoever (though I have) and claims that "Turkish people are not Türks at all". I personally do not want to be edit warring but their last comments on this discussion page are actually quite offensive. Since you have not replied back on the discussion page does not mean you agree with them? Kind regards. Turco85 (Talk) 17:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make another point regarding this issue. If I'm not mistaken, you compared the term "Turks" to "Mercury" in the discussion page. But then what about a term such as "Barack" or "Obama", why do both or these terms redirect straight to "Barack Obama"? I could list a range of other examples of course. Doesn't the fact that offical censuses, as well as search engines for example, most commonly referred to Turkish people as "Turks" make it a significant redirect? Turco85 (Talk) 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have me confused, it wasn't me who compared the term to "Mercury" - in fact, I'm not much of one for argument by analogies, because so many common fallacies of logic involve them. My position on what is the 'correct' meaning of 'Turk' is strictly neutral, which is why I want it to redirect to the obvious disambiguation page where ALL the ambiguous meanings are covered. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for confusing you about the "Mercury". I have no objection of the "Turk" disambiguation it is the "Turks" term only which I believe should be redirected to the "Turkish people" per offical censuses which differ Turkic groups and where the "Turkish" are referred to as "Turks". I would really appreciate it if you continue within the discussion, whether you agree with me or not, as I generally come across a range of socks and the edits of User:Shamans of Tengri (which has only been created yesterday) does not look like a new user to me. Kind regards. Turco85 (Talk) 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving biased messages on talk pages to notify others of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Turkey_Mountain_inscriptions. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have been very selective about who you notified about the DRV. i.e Aarghdvaark. Please don't do that. If you are going to notify people in a discussion about a DRV, notify all of us. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Book copied your edits

See [2] where I removed a copyvio tag.[3] Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email [email protected] your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tadeusz_Sulimirski_.26_Rahul_Sankrityayan — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

ሐበሻ ቀሚሽ?

Hi, T.E. Can you check ሐበሻ ቀሚሽ please? Talk:Ethiopian coffee dress. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sheba

Ethiopian scripture do not count as an archaeological evidence No archeologist ever argued that the Kingdom existed in Ethiopia. There is a legend about a queen but that's not an evidence. 88 sabaen king were found in Yemen not Ethiopia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendite (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You added that the kingdom existed in Ethiopia with only minimal evidence in countries like Yemen. right after that you add that modern archaeological records increasingly support that Sheba existed in Yemen! help me out here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendite (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ashteroth Karnaim

I added a merge proposal at the talk page. I honestly didn't think anyone would mind, the page is dormant (13 edits in 7 years), and most of the information is factually incorrect. Yazan (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lycurgus of Thrace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Interest

Would you be interested in helping me in a book series, or a document WikiProject, if any one already knows a project, help me into editing and allowing a project where maybe confirmed users can allow edits of famous lost notes, ballads, and constitutions, to keep them locked, and used for further notes, I know they maybe compact usually on the internet over years, however, for Wikipedia, it's already there on the main page on every major web browser, this site can keep documents such as Magna Carta, Hammurabi, Le Prophecies of Nostradamus, Ozymandias, and condense the verses better then most websites, and keep different chapters, otherwise, I am hoping under WP:Notability and other policies the document articles for creation noticeboard would offer it if possible. Thanks and please comment on my page if you wish--GoShow (...............) 00:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fried fish

Some may have. Just for the journey. It keeps rather well. The English Jewish version is battered, flatfish is especially good. :) Irondome (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Khenti-amentiu

The reference to Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt by Richard H. Wilkinson supports the Anubis connection. On page 187, the book lists Anubis' common titles and has an entry for "Foremost of the westerners". It then elaborates: "Because the majority of the Egyptians' cemeteries were constructed on the western bank of the Nile—the symbolic direction of the setting sun and the underworld—the deceased were referred to as 'westerners'. Thus, the epithet khenty-imentiu, 'foremost of the westerners', refers to Anubis as leader of the dead. The title was taken from the earlier canine deity of that name that Anubis superseded at Abydos." A. Parrot (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Myth" and religion content, and a few other random comments

First, I think you might be interested in the definitions of the word "myth" in Alan Cairns' Dictionary of Theological Terms, which seems based on its content to be rather fundamentalist in nature, as well as the articles on "myth" and the two closely related articles on "demythologization" in the Karl Rahner-edited Encyclopedia of Theology, making it two (or three, depending on how you count them) articles in an (admittedly Catholic) encyclopedia of only about 400 articles total, so a rather significant matter within the subject of Catholic theology, the subject of the latter volume. Given the prominence "demythologization" of various sorts, including hagiographies, played in early Calvinism and related groups, I think it is fair to say that it is notable enough in those groups, although, admittedly, I haven't checked reference works on them yet. Honestly, between these sources, there does seem to me to be sufficient evidence that Rudolf Bultmann's concept of "mythology" and "myth" is notable enough for both a standalone article here and to references to it in other articles as appropriate. It seems, based on what little I have seen in those articles, to substantially parallel the concepts of "sacred time" and "profane time" as per Mircea Eliade's book The Sacred and the Profane, although it has admittedly been a few years since I read the latter book. This is particularly true given the "demythologization" article I mention. Unfortunately, the EoT doesn't contain the bibliographies of the earlier Sacramentum Mundi, which it is a condensation of, but I have no doubt that the bibliography establishes notability of this concept, which is, apparently, most notable as per WP:NAME under some variation of the word "myth". I'm not sure if you have access to the sources, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are not relatively easily available.

I note you have rather strongly expressed your opposition to the use of the term "myth" in relation to any religions. Unfortunately, as you no doubt know, virtually every old religious/mythological system I can think of is in some way continued in one or more neopagan groups. This creates problems. I would like to propose something to resolve this, maybe in a rather permanent way. You've probably noticed that I am just about the only editor of the Christianity WikiProject newsletter, and I don't know how many people actually read it. I would like to propose, for next month's newsletter, a page containing a debate on the use of the word "myth" and related terms be included, or at least linked to, in the newsletter, and possibly use the debate and related discussion as a springboard to help indicate when and under what circumstances such words should be used here. You would I think be the best person for the "against" side, and, as someone who has been championing the use of the term myself, given the prevalent place it plays in many reference books, I guess maybe I should be the person on the other side. I would think it reasonable to add a link to the discussion on the relevant guideline talk page as well.

You have in the past indicated that you might have an opinion that I and possibly others are perhaps "out to" label religious opinions with which they might disagree as "mythic" for perjorative purposes. I think you might have, at some point, indicated that you think I personally might be among that group. Admittedly, us Catholics are a bit more liberal than some other groups, but we are nowhere near as liberal as some others I know of, like some groups of Continuing Anglicanism. I don't know how I could prove to you that I am not, but all I can say is that I am not, I just want to try to reflect the content of other reference sources, which is, I think, more or less one of the five pillars of wikipedia.

These last comments are a bit more personal. Like I said, I am a Catholic, and a rather "determined" one, although my own personal thinking is in line with doctrine in several places, only because official doctrine has yet to address "science fiction" like issues regarding time travel, multiple universes, transtemporal entities, and other science-fictional concepts. which play a rather pronounced role in my own thinking. You have said you a rather committed adherent of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Having looked, even in WorldCat and JSTOR, I find rather little about that subject written by independent reliable sources of an academic nature. Aziz Atiya's comparatively little material seems to be among the best comparatively recent out there, and it ain't much. Unfortunately, for "independent" sources, this puts a lot of content relating to some of the comparatively unique beliefs of the EOC more or less on a par with some of the scientific beliefs of the Latter-Day Saints in terms of the amount of discussion and attention they get from independent sources, with the exception that the LDS people have at least one journal in English advancing their positions, which so far as I've seen the EOC doesn't.

Also, I suppose I should have apologized for not using your "I believe" statement in the Christianity newsletter. To my eyes, the purpose of those statements is to try to get people interested in the topics enough to maybe read and possibly edit articles on them, and your statements that the EOC is, basically, in communion with the other Oriental Orthodox churches isn't that "eye-catching". Also, you may have noticed that in all the similar statements later, I've had that section deal with the comparatively unusual or unique aspects of any group, as I think those tend to be more likely to get any degree of attention to the content. And, yes, although I did not say "Us Catholics like having priests who molest kids," because I honestly don't think we officially do, I did indicate the issue of priests not marrying in that "I believe" section, which is popularly linked to the issue of Catholic child sex abuse.

Finally, and he will shut up now, you may have noticed that I haven't been as active lately. I've been trying to put together in Word information on the various saints and other liturgical celebrations of the liturgical Christian churches. Some I can't verify as notable enough for separate articles, and some I can only find calendars for specific dioceses or whatever for, which Is why I haven't been doing them in article space. But next moth in time for the newsletter I hope to be able to put together at least a partial list of those subjects actively included in current liturgical calendars, for the Saints project. I have seen a website listing the nature of the EOC church calendar, and think that an article on it is probably notable enough for an article, and also apparently for the church in general, which makes it more useful. If you would have any interest in writing such an article, I would very much welcome it.

If you do reply to this message here, by the way, I would welcome maybe dropping a "talkback" notice on my user talk page, as my watch list is really long and I seem to be spending most of my computer time on the liturgical calendar list anyway, so the response might not even show up the next time I check my watchlist. Sorry about that, but the list is long, about 160 pages so far, and there is still a lot I haven't integrated into it. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I haven't taken the time to read the Wikiproject Christianity newsletter, either. I get tired of just pointing out that "myth" is a subjective vantagepoint that everyone has their own different views of. Also I don't have any pressing priority to write about the EOTC Calendar. I will keep it in mind, but I have also been thinking about making a needed article soon for the book My Life and Ethiopia's Progress Thanks Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Change the Beat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sampling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your defending the scope of Wikipedia and supporting the pursuit of greater knowledge. Good job. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nephilim

I don't question your revert if it modified the interpretation, such was not my intention. However, the first sentence could benefit from a cleanup, or perhaps be split into two... It's the first thing one reads when visiting the article, and it's rather oddly formatted. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A thank you

Thank you for fixing the title of what's now Constantine I's turn against Paganism. I'd landed on the article at least twice and put it on my watchlist, but I was so put off by its general misconception of Classical Roman religion as something called "Paganism" that I didn't want to get started. I still doubt that "turn against Paganism" is the best way to express this topic, but am glad it no longer defies standard English. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Template:History of Armenia

It appears that the user KentronHayastan removed a very important chunk of the section (Marzpanate Period -> Marzpanate Armenia)in the Antiquity. Can you please restore that part? It is the part after Commagene, we have our leader in the Christian era Vartan Mamikonian, battling against foreign rule in our land. He apparently removed this part, I dont think this user who appears is Armenian historian, is in fact ruining in a very clever way. Please look out for his changes on this matter. Thank you. 75.51.173.37 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything at all about Marzpanate Armenia offhand, but I'll take a look at that article to learn something. I'm hardly an expert in Armenian history myself - I was only editing the aesthetic alignment of the dates in that template. Someone who knows more about it may be better able to help. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

user 75.51.172.205 is Frost778

I have confirmed this and he has agreed. If you look at my user talk page, he is continuing a conversation that he had with me while edit warring on the template (he insists on using the word Ancient instead of Prehistory, which I changed to Bronze & Iron Age to be more objective). Frost778 is currently blocked, which is why he is not able to edit the template page itself (since it is protected). I'm unsure where to report this, but you seem to know. If you can tell me, next time I'll do it myself. Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He has returned with a different IP. 75.51.171.188. Click on "View history" in Arsacid dynasty of Armenia, using the same argument. Kentronhayastan (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoo.. Thanks for helping me solve this issue. He was still talking to me (or rather, giving me orders) on my talk page earlier, but he seems to have stopped. Kentronhayastan (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the template issues

Sir, will you please take a look at what i wrote to Kentronhayastan here:

My lovely friend, you still havent gave me an answer why they have ANCIENT in 3200 BC, and why we cant, you realize these other users are slowly going to realize, if not already, what im talking about, and that you are an imposter, your name in Armenian for them that dont know means Heart of Armenia. So I suggest you either show yourself true, or you are an imposter. I told you a simple question regarding why our lovely friends of Iran Persia, can have ANCIENT in 3200 BC of there HISTORY OF IRAN TEMPLATE, and our HISTORY OF ARMENIA is not allowed to in that area of time I just mentioned to you. Got it buddy? 75.51.172.205 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 75.51.172.205 (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Popular 115

Hi! Some editors (like you) have been constructively editing "Element 115 in pop". Those were modest contributions, but much more can be done to the expansion of content and other improvements. Hopefully this will continue over the years as would be expected for any regular article. As you have been involved, you are invited to give a look at those edits. By the way, you did an excellent work in the introduction; it was appreciated. Eka-bismuth (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of fencing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page En garde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!

Thank you for catching that noticeboard move. It was a mistake caused by too many open tabs that I have been trying to undo since. Thank you for fixing it! AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, no prob, but I also messed up putting too many "Wikipedia:"s in the title, and now a sysop may have to change it! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Done -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sock/meat puppet of Frost778 on another article

He was at Orion (constellation). It's protected now, but the last edit in was his and I'm at 3rr. I'd appreciate the help, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Til. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost778. The main concern right now is to be sure we cover all of his ranges. He is more of a nuisance than a serious vandal, but in case new cases appear, people shouldn't have to waste time investigating them from scratch. If you want to add anything to the report, please do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foreign Protestants, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mi'kmaq (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Agricolae's bogus genealogies

Hi Til, Remember a little while back you did the slightest bit of review on User:Agricolae's genealogies over on the fringe noticeboard. Well, I've been doing some further digging over on the Ancestry of the kings of Britain page and found out they are all bogus and entirely his own invention and OR. He seems to have some intention of covering up certain kings, such as Godulf Geoting and Crida, making up his own House of Icel and removing the real kings from the record. Probably to protect other genealogies that will all fall apart when corrected. Thought I'd ask for your comeradeship on that, if you fancy helping look into it and making a stand for factual information on Wikipedia instead of someone's made-up fantasies. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it offhand, but I would like to look at it in detail some time. For now I am confused because I thought that was your article they were trying to delete, so I copied it onto my sandbox. I also had thought Agricola was one of those accusing you of pushing contrived genealogies. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

ACW: 'Slavery' double-image

Please see 'Slavery' section -- double image. for my rationale to restore your version, which I found anonymously reverted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paul_Bedson#Mostly_outside_view_by_Til_Eulenspiegel

I can't endorse your comment because I have a problem with the last sentence. You said "(...) the best articles do include the historiography of their subject, that is, tracing the history of what people, or schools of thought, used to think about it, not just what they think now. "

But this is nor complete unless you point out that the opinions about very old sources should be sourced from more recent sources. Recent historians can point out the biases and the gaps of knowledge. They explain why the old texts are outdated or simply wrong. They explain when an inaccuracy is a symptom of bias, and when it's because they weren't aware of certain information that is now available to modern scholars. Recent sources will analyze the old text inside the context where it was created. Sourcing directly from old sources will cause a lot of errors in articles, and it causes a lots of problems with original research. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahmose I

Hi Til,

the syllable Ah in the name Ahmose is a theophoric syllable. Ahmose I was the first pharao in the ruling dynasty which was named after him, the Ahmosides. The deity of this ruling dynasty was Iah, a moon deity.

Did you ever read the article on Iah?

This is common knowledge and not unsourced.

Theoporic syllables were very common in ancient Egypt. See: Ramesses_I Ra-moses -> Born of Ra etc.

See also: New Kingdom

--Basti Schneider (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

status quo ante?

Lipsio is right about WP:BRD. In editing disputes, the status quo ante should remain in place until the proposed new change has been justified in discussion, which it has not yet.

How do you think that his new change is a "status quo ante".

"first post-apostolic ecumenical council" a "status quo ante". tahc ^chat 19:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

orumi.egloos.com/3390711

↑ "korea Professor of history blog"

hwandangogi is fake. 이 멍청한 새끼야 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.138.16.138 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

씨발놈아 나 한국놈이라고 중국놈이지 너

korean history "http://book.interpark.com/product/BookDisplay.do?_method=Detail&sc.shopNo=0000400000&sc.dispNo=&sc.prdNo=204610884&bsch_sdisbook"

좆같은새끼 니가 뭘 아냐??

how much you know about Korean history? 씨발새끼야 

are you chinese???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.138.16.138 (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

fuck you, vandalism

vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism vandalism

are you korean?? Did you learned the history of Korea?

It doesn't matter what ethnicity I am. I'm ready to get reliable sources for various North Korean, South Korean, Chinese viewpoints regarding the Hwangan Gogi, which I can also link to an English version of the Hwandan Gogi demonstrating that however old it really is, its content is in the same general vein or genre as something like the Bamboo Annals or Diodorus Siculus, not at all like modern propaganda or perspective. It may be false, and we may never know or all agree, but your behavior is no substitute for discussion and will achieve no positive results; but if instead of discussing, your attacks continue the manner they have so far, this will be taken to ANI. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome

Thank you so much for the warm welcome. I was just so frustrated with the WikiProject Ethiopia that I had to act. The majority of my work will be on that project in English.

I thank you for your warm invite to join the translation project into Amharic. However, I do not believe I would be the best candidate for that project. Although, I am a native speaker of Amharic, my reading and writing has fallen significantly below acceptable for Wikipedia standards. I have lived in the US for too long. My time is much better spent copy-editing the English articles, a language in which I am much more proficient.

Please join my discussions on the following pages as I try to jump start the WikiProject Ethiopia:

• Talk:Battle of Adwa - submitted for peer review
• Talk:Ethiopia - archiving talk page so a final edit and clean-up can start for possible submission for FA
• Talk:People of Ethiopia - about merging People of Ethiopia and Habesha people into Demographics of Ethiopia

Thanks in advance for any contributions to my efforts ---- አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Book of Ezekiel

Hi Wikitiki89, Til Eulenspiegel and Student7 - Grace and Peace! Might I invite you to the discussion topic I've started on the Book of Ezekiel talk page regarding the use of 'God' vs 'YHWH' in this article. You all clearly have knowledge of and passion for the subject and I would really appreciate seeing that harnessed into a new section. Wikipedia covers well the 'Yahwist'/'Elohist' source ideas that arise in higher criticism, but there is little on how the use of different references to the Deity has been interpreted through succeeding generations of Rabbinic and Christian interpretation. The Book of Ezekiel has its own emphasis here, particularly in the use of 'Lord GOD', so it's as good a place to start as any, and your collective enthusiasm makes you the ideal team! ;) For what it's worth, I come from a conservative Christian position, well-read but formally untaught in Theology. Blessings of Hannukah just past and Christmas about to come!John M Brear (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

The Bot is in error. I copied that article from another Wikipedia article as a starting point. The website it thinks I copied from is a copy of the original article I copied from.

BTW check out what I am working on --> User:Janweh64/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethiopia አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Enquiry on Semitic article edit by Shalom12345

Hello, I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Thank you, for telling me to put a reliable source next time for my edits. For my edits, to do with the Sayyid, on the Semitic article, can I put this source:

^ Y chromosomes of self-identified Syeds from the Indian subcontinent show evidence of elevated Arab ancestry but not of a recent common patrilineal origin, Elise M. S. Belle & Saima Shah & Tudor Parfitt & Mark G. Thomas; Received: 11 March 2010 / Accepted: 28 May 2010 / Published online: 29 June 2010

Please come back to me as soon as possible, as I want to undo your edit and add a source. Thanks for your guidance..

Join Ethiopia WikiProject

I would like to invite you to join the Ethiopia WikiProject. I have made significant changes to the project page and completely redesigned the project. It would help to establish yout active roll in helping to improve Ethiopia-related articles.

I would also encourage you to join one of the "Departments" of the project by adding you name to its members page. I have started with the outreach department myself but you are welcome to jump start any of the other 8 (9 total) departments available or join me. I would recommend the history department (WP:ETHH). And of course, thank you! For your many contributions to Ethiopia-related articles --- አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nahor

Nahor is not an article about one Nahor, but about two Nahors. So the interwikis should not select just one target, because there's no reason to chose one instead of the other. Maybe the correct procedure should be to divide this article into three, and create one article for each Nahor - after all, meta:Wiki is not paper. Albmont (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not technically a disambig, it's an article about all the uses of the name Nahor in the Bible, including the third Nahor = place name. And IMO since they are interconnected and not very long articles, they should all fit on one page. The way other wikis divide their articles usually isn't a major consideration for us to divide ours the same way to make the robots fit, in any event I think some of the interwikis have two articles with a disambig, while others put them all together as we do. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the crazy bots were linking to articles of one Nahor, when those wikis (fr, nl, etc) had articles for the generic Nahor and for both Nahors. This is what I meant by saying that this is a disambiguity page (it should be), and not an article about one Nahor. Albmont (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Early greetings for the new year

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Victory, Janus, Chronos, and Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

I appreciate the dignity you bring to the Wikipedia community. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Translations on Haile Selassie I

I have a problem with some of the translations on this article. Actually, not the translations but in claiming they are literal. For example:

• qädamawi = the one that "comes before" if translated literally, not the first. But the First is a more appropriate translation which is why words like roughly are used.
• Tafari = literally actually mean one who is "feared." It comes from the root "mefrat" or to fear. It does not mean respected... respected would be tekebari from the root "makber". We can't just throw these terms around like they are fine.
• Haile Selassie = would be literally THE Power of THE Trinity... a small distinction but still, we can't ignore it.

I don't think though we should change these definitions but we cant claim they are literal translations. Actually, the definition of Tafari should be changed. Because, I think who ever translated that made POV decision to soften the meaning. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)