Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:13, 18 March 2013

Archives

Archive 1

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)

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. 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)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

Hi there! Thanks for a Barnstar that you gave me!--_{Mwanaharakati} 07:37, 13 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)

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, Anupam 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 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 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...

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 02:13, 6 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Book copied your edits

See where I removed a copyvio tag. 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 wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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?

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

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your defending the scope of Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages:"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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I don't know whether literal translations in that sense are feasable at all with any two languages...

I agree that qädamawi is etymologizingly "being before"; yet in the dictionaries the translation first (cf. e.g. Wolf Leslau Comparative Dictionary of Geez 1991, p. 421; Dillmann 1865, p. 464: primus, prior) is given...

with teferi, I agree that "respected" seems too vague; "respected" is not clearly given as translation in Geez dictionaries (cf. e.g. Wolf Leslau Comparative Dictionary of Geez 1991, p. 166; cf. Dillmann 1865, p. 1352: timeri, metui, reverenter coli) and tekebari is according to the Geez dictionary rather honored, esteemed (cf. e.g. Wolf Leslau Comparative Dictionary of Geez 1991, p. 274; Dillmann 1865, p. 846: honorari, honore affici, magni aestimari); the translation "respected" for both seems too be amharizing (cf. Kane Amharic-English Dictionary 1990,p. 1416, 2274).

I'd also prefer the power of the trinity, but I don't know, what sounds better in English. The problem is that definitness is expressed completely differently in Geez.

--Aferghes (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Now I see, teferi is actually Amharic, but since respected might give the impression of esteemed and teferi does not imply that connotation it is difficult, marginal,

besides "the power of the trinity" maybe also "the trinity power" if possible in English

--Aferghes (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:VER policy usually gets the ultimate word and the major Amharic dictionaries eg Amsalu say teferra v. = he was feared, respected, honoured; teferi adj./n. = one who is feared, respected, honourable. So it doesn't matter what is difficult or marginal, but thanks for the input on the Ge'ez meanings, all of these words have their own Amharic definitions and ironically out of all these, only the construction "Haile Selassie" is still considered to be in Ge'ez - pretty complex relationship between meanings in the two languages. And I also am not sure why it would necessarily be "THE Power of the Trinity" since the article is not expressed in Ge'ez it could also just be "Power of the Trinity". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Zappa(?)

Hey, I dig your stuff on CC of the '60s. Do you think FZ is really "psychedelic," or more "avant garde?" He never did drugs, and pretty much hated the hippies, I think, etc. I'm not sure inclusion of "Freak Out" is notable for this chronology. It's certainly HUGE for '60s music in general. This is no big deal, but please make your case for inclusion :) Thanks!Learner001 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The scope of the article title includes not just hippies but other types as well, FZ's followers were called "freaks" immediately with the release of this album and were a subset of CC and yes, I definitely think that album is psychedelic! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You gotta dig the Furry Freaks! Do you want to add something for Mr. Natural? The best of those underground comix were very cool and defintely worthy/notable, in my view. Learner001 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

Could you please point me to the consensus that states Rastafari is not a religion? Thank. Pass a Method talk 17:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have come up a few times in the past 8 or so years, either in talk or editing, but I think it's an understood consensus among editors. As was discussed, properly it is a "movement" as opposed to a "religion" because it has never unified as a single body like other religions, nor is it likely to do so, being a "movement". Many adherents also object to it being a "religion", preferring to call it specifically a "Way of Life". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several sources describing it as a religion. How about we mention both as in "Rastafari is a spiritual movement and religion" or "Rastafari is a spiritual and religious movement"? I disagree with the current lede because it talks about the country instead of the movement. Pass a Method talk 18:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We could get discussion on this from more editors at Talk:Rastafari movement. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

First dynasty of Ur

Hello, I recently became very interested in the first dynasty of Ur. I see you edited some articles about it extensively. Can you confirm to me that Puabi (Shub-ad), is actually the wife of A-bar-gi (Abaraz), and that Ninbanda (wife of Meskalamdug) is their daughter? Aleksamil (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I cannot. Where did you get that from? Nobody knows who she was, as far as I know; that's why the article has none of this. My personal guess actually is that Puabi / Shubad is the same as Gan-saman wife of Meskiag-nuna... but that is strictly my own theory. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, when I googled Shubad, most sites, which seem very unreliable, state she was the wife of A-bar-gi. Some sites are seriously questionable, being ancient alien theorists, though those sites mostly claim she is also Naamah from Genesis 4:22. Also, the Turkish wikipedia states that a cylinder with Abargi's name was found next to her grave. Also, I read about it in a book called "Gdy słońce było bogiem" ("When the sun was god") by Zenon Kosidowski. Can you at least confirm that I am, without a doubt, wrong? That would also be of much help. Aleksamil (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Google books generally has more reliable material than the web. But all I can determine is that Abargi's tomb where the cylinder was found, was beneath Shubad's tomb. That would suggest to me that Abargi is an earlier king, but the most reliable sources say it is uncertain if he was married to Puabi, or even if he had any title. I also find that Puabi is the husband of an unknown king in other books. I would guess that after this unknown king died, Puabi ran the kingdom in her own right for a time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 467ae05bd4021489ceb6d6c569d7344d

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Some info on date of Daniel (Biblical book)

Greetings Til. I see some info on possibilities for the date of writing of the book of Daniel on a user page you created. You cite, among other things, arguments based on the Aramaic of the book. I thought you might be interested in another way of looking at this, as given by Roger Beckwith's article, "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel" in Tyndale Bulletin 53 (2002), pp. 75-82. Here is a summary of the article from my notes:

Book of Tobit is now ascribed by scholarship to late 3rd or early 2nd century BC, and it makes an apparent reference to “times and seasons” of Dan 9:2. The Book of Watchers is from about the same time. The term “watcher” is found in Daniel 4 and nowhere else in Scripture. There are quite direct quotes from Daniel. Ecclesiasticus can be dated quite definitely to about 180 BC. “The author of Tobit seems to know Daniel 2 and some if not all of the chapters 7, 8, 9 and 12. The author of the Book of Watchers seems to know Daniel 4, 7, 8 or 9, and 10 or 12, if not all of these. The author of Ecclesiasticus seems to know Daniel 8 or 11–12, and probably both” (p. 81). Beckwith shows evidence against the view that these sections referring to Daniel were added to the original writings after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Thanks for your review of my contributions on the Parian Marble page. Chronic2 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Inadequate edit summary

at Canaan. I requested the policy consensus for your reverting BCE. Your first and second explanations were inadequate. As regards the second comment, 'every time' suggests I go round pages plunking BCE everywhere requiring you to revert me. I don't think the record shows any such interaction. Please refer me to the policy or consensus you mentioned in your first revert edit summary. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WP has always expressly stated that BC is perfectly acceptable and not to change it to BCE without previous discussion and agreement on the article talk page. It does not share your opinion that BC is "systemic bias". You didn't know that? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually you could have saved a lot of fuss by citing the correct policy page as now supplied to me on Dougweller's page, where I requested input. Even above, you err in stating that policy. The relevant notice is that either is O.K. and whatever usage prevails by customary usage on a page cannot be overturned except by prior consensus on the talk page. You are correct therefore in the instance of Canaan, but incorrect in your understanding of the general policy. For the former incident, my apologies.(I don't read policy. I read books, and edit according to academic sources, WP:NPOV or commonsense.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal names category

Archiving

This talk page is rather long; would you like to archive it? I have added an archive box above -- hope that is OK. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

POV

Not all of point of views deserve respect. All archaeological findings indicate that Saba is Sheba! if a Nigerian wants to say the roman's capital was in his country should i respect his POV? Ethiopians downplay any sabaean influence on Aksum while insisting that their land is biblical sheba. Aksum existed in the 1st century AD while sheba history started in 1200 BC! The source somebody provided from the BBC clearly states that there is no archaeological or textual evidence for the Ethiopian claims. This is not about a POV it's history of nations and people --Kendite (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And i'm really sorry to say this but what does west africa have to do with Sheba? How would you feel if someone steal you cultural and historical heritage like that? check out the the article in Arabic and see what sheba really was for yourself..--Kendite (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What is your evidence for the west African claim? i provided two sources of well known archaeologists..do you have any? --Kendite (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Counterculture of the 1960s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maryland State College (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) 11:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Why adding language links again?

Hi Til Eulenspiegel -- just wondering about this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tashkent&diff=538135394&oldid=538101033

Any reason for re-adding the language links? They seem to come from Wikidata just fine. Would you reinstate the edit? --denny vrandečić (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't reinstate the edit, without some kind of explanation of what is going on here. Are interwiki language links now obsolete all of a sudden? Where is wikidata? What is wikidata? Was anyone informed of it, because I wasn't. Why do I only see interwiki links being removed from Tashkent and Uzbekistan and nowhere else, and not systematically being stripped from all articles by bots, since it would be too tedious for a wikipedia user to perform? I rest my case. Interwiki language links should never be wholesale removed by users - unless the reason can be demonstrated, such as untangling links to the wrong article in conjunction with bot work, but there are better ways of doing that as well. Have a nice day! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We tried to reach as many Wikipedians as possible: article in Signpost and message in the Village pump. We have been developing this feature openly on Meta during the last year, and have been online on Wikidata itself since September. We tried to disseminate the news about Wikidata as widely as possible, and we would be happy if you could tell us how to improve on this. Regarding bots, I personally expect that bots might start cleaning up the language links soon, but this is up to the bot authors and owners. I hope this helps, and I welcome any comments! --denny vrandečić (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You might have at least put a notice somewhere in the filing cabinet marked "Beware of Tiger". How do you expect anyone ever to see it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, we're professionals. We did that, obviously. It was in the filing cabinet in the disused lavatory in the cellar. Our department of communications took care of that. --denny vrandečić (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of 1677, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weyanoke (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) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

You reverted my edit, but didn't say why in your edit summary. Could you join the talk page discussion? - MrX 15:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of The Beatles track to the article on Reggae

lol. Ok you have a point but it is a song that most West Indians would consider a travesty. Have your own way but know that the Caribbean people who make reggae don't consider the song a good advert for reggae. Anyway I'm off to the Chuck Berry article now to include "Rubber Ball" by Bobby Vee as a prime example of a Rock 'n' Roll influenced track. I wouldn't really do that since its not. Still live and let live and everyone to their own.

Sluffs (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the Beatles wanted to say 'Life goes on' to their critics after they had already been thru so much together, and they were also looking for a new genre that was the latest thing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that professional musicians always write great songs. Also looking at your talk page I see that the Beatles track in discussion here has led to a dispute before with you. Also your User name is based on the "classic" joker from the Richard Strauss piece of music and I do believe the character is a "joker" from German folklore. I put it to you that you are a trouble-maker. Someone who delights in confrontation - shame really - do you know that last year I was on a Wiki users Talk page discussing Kepler's Laws of Planetary motion - he was an Nasa engineer who had been involved in the design of the space shuttle. That is a testament to the quality and intelligence of the editors. Not that this matters to someone of your high esteem and depth of intelligence and understanding. I would recommend that if you seek to validate your intelligence and life through confrontation that you should at least be a man about it and stop being evasive and facetious. lol

Sluffs (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This person is spying on my reggae edits. lol - Just for that I'm going to switch to doing all The Beatles articles. lol. Just kidding. The only problem with being a Wikiholic (workaholic) is that I forget that a lot of editors show more of an interest in what other editors are doing and protecting the unjustifiable - as is the case with this so-called reggae influenced Beatles track. Clever guy Paul McCartney - got you jumping through the Beatles hoop mate. Super rich guy because of it and definitely could sell coal to Newcastle. No wonder Lennon wrote the caustic and insulting line "Come all over me" for his sycophantic fans. Its a terrible pop song but you say it has to stay exactly the way it is in the reggae article. So be it my friend - you're the boss. lol

Sluffs (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's "Come together right now over me"... but I'd rather be me than that Paul any day...! I've written parts of the reggae article going back years and always watched it... but I have yet to edit any Beatles article! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time for this thing with you. Its distracting me from the task of bringing the Reggae articles up to the same level of quality as (ironically) The Beatles article. I use the Mozart and The Beatles articles as reference points for my standardizing of the reggae articles (see my Edit history). Also I'm a firm believer in giving my own ego as well as the other people's egos an easy time. So I'm going off to do articles that you're not associated with and will leave you in peace to enjoy yourself on Misplaced Pages in whatever self-satisfying fashion you choose. Mea culpa est.

Sluffs (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

History of the hippie movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to American Pie, Happy Together and Ruby Tuesday

Counterculture of the 1960s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eve of Destruction

Hippie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jive

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Togarmah

Hello. With regard to your edit & related comment in Togarmah, you are correct to say that there is a double meaning in my version of the sentence. However, your version, "Togarmah is sometimes identified with the Anatolian kingdom called Tegarama" can not be correct since Togarmah is a person while Tegarama is a city (and maybe a "kingdom"). Sources indicate a sort of relatedness rather than an identification. Filanca (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It is easy to verify "equated", take a look at

Most of the names in Genesis 10 are equated with peoples or countries of the same name in Hebrew, who were considered to be descended from them. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Even in that sense I would not use "equated" or similar, instead say something like "related to", but at least one of the sources confirm you. Filanca (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It could be "has been related to", then 'related' is more obviously a participle than "is related"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Or clearer still. "has been connected with" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

From Tegarama: "The city is sometimes associated with Biblical Togarmah." Filanca (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Assyrian kings

Hi, the kinglist page says Ashur-Dan I c. 1179–1133 BC "son of Ashur-nadin-apli"

Is this simply an error? The Ashur-Dan I page says he was the son of Ninurta-apil-Ekur.

Jcwf (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)