Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:37, 16 June 2012

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)

Gog and Magog

Hi. Regarding those dates on Gog and Magog, I think you were wrong to undo my change. WP:ERA states "Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but be consistent within the same article." You have put the article back to using BC and CE. I don't mind which system it uses as long as it's a matching pair - I only changed BC to BCE because the article already had four CE's and no ADs. Will you revise it?  —SMALLJIM  10:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Saka

I reverted your recent removal of maintenance tags at Saka and a discussion has now started on the article talk page. Please, do not accuse me of drive-by tagging in the manner which you did. It was inappropriate & hopefully you are now aware that I have this article watchlisted. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 9 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)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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} 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. Misplaced Pages: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, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Affiliations

you should include your affiliations, including that with the Orthodox Church on your user page in the spirit of full disclosure. i had to look through your talk page to find your motivations for the matter regarding the tower of babel. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have NO obligation to declare what my "affiliations" are, have never done so, never will do so on wikipedia, and consider it more prudent not to do so. What my personal private "affiliations" may or may not be, 64.250.81.218, are entirely 100% irrelevant to you, and to my work on this project. In the above section you will see that an administrator solicited me uninvited for information about what the Ethiopian Orthodox believe. I answered him because I have knowledge of this. If I feel that my doing so is going to be used against me in any way, or especially used to discriminate against me, there are certainly going to be consequences. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Til Eulenspiegel, thanks for this reply. It helps clarify matters, IMO. Not about you, but concerning why and how to disclose or not disclose. It seems too easy for fellow editors to assume bias, or POV, without compelling evidence. drs (talk) 15:36, 16 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)

June 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Africa, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 16:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)