This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garzo/archive. |
This page contains archived discussions from
User talk:Garzo. They are kept here for information only, and all conversations are considered closed. To stop this page getting too long, older conversations can be found by date: |
Throughout the beginning years, I don't know how I ever lost your "Wiki respect" (and I don't know if you will ever see me as a trusted Wiki user.) But first I was wondering if you could give me your opinion regarding the creations of guidelines when it comes to the Aramaic/Syriac language - Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac)#Setting_rules.2Fguidelines; I know you have previously said Syriac is at its most strictly form, a reference to classical Syriac and not what Assyrians speak today. So I'm not sure if I have done it right or not. If you are interested in the topic, I hope you get a chance to read my latest work; Athura (I used a section of your's from Aramaic language.) Reviews/criticism are welcomed. Chaldean ( talk) 02:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[ [1]] among others. Chaldean ( talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fake as always, I think it was you and EliasAlucard who screwed up on this. I just provided a source wich states that he consider himselfs Aramean or Syriac, and not Assyrian as it was before I changed it (and with a source that didn't say anything about him being Assyrian). And look what I've found [4]. Chaldean changing it to Assyrian, with the comment "the source says assyrian". The TriZ ( talk) 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I was saying that it doesn't, have you read that? Go fight it out in other pages? It is you fighting and creating editwars. The TriZ ( talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello I need to do some research Can you give more information about jewish people who spoke aramaic language in villages around van lake? And if you share your source and tell me where you find these information,I would be happy.
Thank you B. Barokas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.254.85 ( talk) 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I never edited that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.212.96 ( talk) 09:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
HI I am informing you on the following discussions referring to the usage of diacritics on en.wiki. It seem there is a movement/campaign of some peple (moreover administrators) which try to eliminate them from the usage on en .wiki. Or at least to minimize , even for personal names in Latin script
Since I have seen your name in some discussions I thought it would be nice to inform you. Pay attention to the following pages : WP:UE , Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics and similar ones if you are interested. Anto ( talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Fair trade and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Garzo, last edit on Turkish Language was explained in talk page and is different from last reversions. The edit was represented by views of arguers on talk page. There is no edit war, discussion on talk page continues. Kaygtr ( talk) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your statements "partisan" and "unencyclopedic". The two articles in question present a lot of "revised history" or an attempt to rewrite the facts with propaganda. They have been edited with a attempt to present a false history, contrary to statements and facts already at hand. Eyewitnesses accounts and articles previous published disprove these edits. The truth is not always convenient. I know they attempt to cover up the facts in the movement, but they say they are more "scriptural" than the "pagan Christians". Then why not do what Paul did to those in his churches that were involved in incest and adultery? Their behavior is recorded for all time in the Bible. The Bible is not a book that covers up things, see David and Bathsheba. (I noticed that charges of adultery were left in the article, I wonder why? But the expanded historical version was deleted...hummm) I can pretty well guess the reason for trying to conceal the real historical facts, having been in the movement for over 3 decades. There is an agenda to rewrite history with a false history. Perhaps we should rewrite the history of the Popes as well so that their history looks better and they appear in a more "Godly" "holy" fashion? I can always tell when I am dealing with the SNM people, statements like "Jesus is the name of a pagan god" or connected to Zeus because "sus" is a pigs head, an offering to Zeus (Meyer). "God is the name of a pagan idol" "Christ is the name of a pagan god" (or as MEYER says it refers to sexual intercourse or a practice used to anoint prostitutes or gay folks --- just plain stupid). If your eyes are bugging out reading this, just think about those of us that are reading and listening to the tapes that have been put out by them, so we can get the actual facts. It takes days of reading and listening to tapes to come up with an accurate account.
And "ax grinding" (anyone who disagrees with us or our doctrine - they scream persecution or "I'm being attacked" and they really get irate when someone leaks the truth about thing on the inside out of the group...). I know too much to not have been is this movement for many many years..... PS how does one go about getting in contact with someone that is an editor here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.64.220 ( talk) 03:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Would like input on how to address the Anon and the vandalism on the SNM page? WEMUS ( talk) 10:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point me to a discussion which concerns this part of the infobox? There appears to be a recent discussion concerning Maltese classification itself, and it seems to have been decided to enter the other viewpoints in - so surely that means it wouldn't be wise for us to enforce the afro-asiatic family color onto the article. Cheers Poklopichika ( talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
On user has made these changes to the article. There are a few changes of nomenclature, but I don't see any real problem with it. — Gareth Hughes ( talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Garzo,
Yesterday I made some comments on Aramaic primacy along with a link to an article which discussed "Which Language Did Jesus Speak - Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek?" As Administrator you accused me of spamming and deleted my entire entry. My intention was to provide legitimate discussion material on this subject and provide a link for more information. You have also deleted previously entered web link that I inserted on other articles relative to Aramaic. My purpose is to provide unbiased information on Aramaic with an emphasis on the Peshitta. I am a novice user of Wikipedia and twice your biological age. Beyond deletions and threats do you have any other advice to offer me in the use of Wikipedia? Several years ago at a Syriac Symposium as well as in numerous discussions with Chaldean and Assyrian priests and scholars, I noticed that although many scholars do not acknowledge Dr. Lamsa's work openly because it goes against the grain of Western scholarship, privately they highly respect him and his work. I would like to enter into open dialog without my words being edited away. Would it be part of your vocation to assist?
Shlama Amkhon,
James J. DeFrancisco, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdefancisco ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Garzo,
Thank you for your clarifications. I understand that I violated Wikipedia policy but my motive was not to intentionally violate policy. The links you provided should prove to be useful in keeping me within compliance. You do seem to be very judgmental and biased. I mentioned that I am new to Wikipedia editing but I guess I should have explicitly told you that I just became aware of your entries and warnings. Your use of language is very interesting: "flawed collection of second-hand material", "stubbornness", "ignoring . . . ", etc. Were these remarks really legitimate and worthy of a scholar of your stature? I have read your facebook but have you read Mattai 5-7. It is unfortunate that numerous "flimsy scholars" may promote Aramaic Primacy. Actually, some of the "flimsy" scholars I spoke with have references and links in your article and you would know them and respect them. I don't mention their names because it would create some stress among the scholarly community and the conversations were private. None of them openly profess Aramaic Primacy. In any event, it has been very enlightening to communicate with you and, if your reactionary judgment is indicative of your church, I have added to my understanding of why the Anglican church has experienced so much division. By the way, I do not have "my book" on my website and only promote free articles, resources at nominal cost, and the works of others at this point in time. The main book on Aramaic Primacy that I promote on my site is NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN, a fairly well documented book by Lamsa. It is worthy of study even though it is a very simple book. You have produced an excellent feature article on Aramaic Language but your article on Aramaic Primacy is biased, in my opinion. Beyond that, communicating with you has been quite an experience.
Shlama,
James J. DeFrancisco, Ph.D. Jdefancisco ( talk) 20:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures| Jdefancisco ( talk) 20:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)]] comment added by Jdefancisco ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Garzo,
I have added 3 texts to the bibliography and, hopefully, you will find no fault with at least adding them. I have added no links or references to my website but these scholars are relevant to the subject and have diverse views which are valuable in researching this topic. I doubt you will have problems with Fitzmyer. I don't know how you feel about Torrey. And, I know, Lamsa was a nice guy but a unsatifactory scholar but he produced the best book on the subject of Aramaic Primacy in my opinion (even though I do not agree with all of his conclusions). If you have a problem with these additions, which I assure you were done in the interest of objectivity, please let me know before pulling the plug on me with your sanctions.
Dominus vobiscum,
Jamees J. DeFrancisco, Ph.D. Jdefancisco ( talk) 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. User:Getoar keeps reverting a compromise that User:Ijanderson977 came up with on the talk page of Serbian language, see compromise here [8] [9]. He has reverted the compromise twice within the past few days [10] [11]. I reverted him once, and I was tempted to revert him again, but I thought it would be better to come to you first. Thanks. -- Tocino, 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Maltese language is being visited by one or two sockpuppets of some of the previously banned users.Could you take a look? ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Garzo, I had a word with User:Pdfpdf about his revert of your edit and accompanying edit summary at Oddfellows. Deiz talk 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I had some (mild) concerns with a paragraph in the article which I briefly touched on in my comments on the article discussion page and I thought I would notify you since you wrote the material in that section and thought you might like to address it there if changes can (or should be) made to improve the article. Thanks. Awotter ( talk) 21:49, 27 August 2008
(UTC)
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot ( talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, do you know anything about use of (Classical) Syriac as a liturgical language in the following communities:
Thanks in advance. -- Koryakov Yuri ( talk) 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What OR did I put in this article? You deleted my referenced edit, and called your edit a minor edit. I'm confused. I can understand getting rid of Rktect stuff, which is what I'd done, replacing it with some sourced information. You'll see I've removed some stuff from Abronah also and tagged other claims which had no page numbers with nothing turning up on Google, maybe Rktect again. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you have protected various articles relating to the Illyrians, their language, culture etc, often with factual errors intact! While it is understandable that you do not desire edit wars, the fact remains that many claims/links/expressions in these articles have no cited sources/verification and are merely the POV of some rather vulgar editors. When asked for sources/proof etc as to why certain links are passages should remain in the article, they respond with personal insults and vague claims about "theories" and the like. Yet you have apparently seen fit to lock said articles with these baseless claims and statements still remaining! Attempts to discuss these issues o the relevant discussion pages have led to more personal insults and incoherent diatribes! Since these articles are now locked, I do feel it would be best to remove the controversial links, statements etc until such time as someone can give reliable sources that verify their inclusion, and not merely simple statements such as "that is what everyone knows". 41.245.165.140 ( talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. There is a discussion pertaining to one of your blocks at WP:ANI#Blocked?. Incidents arising from that discussion are Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dr Rgne and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Rgne. Just letting you know, in case you would like to comment. justinfr ( talk/ contribs) 18:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it was driving me crazy seeing all the vandalism. Did I read the edit summary right - you used Twinkle? I've got a day to go on my RfA and hopefully will get through it and will be able to protect articles like that when appropriate. There are a few that are getting a lot of IP vandalism recently (well, probably a lot, I'm just thinking of the ones I watch). Doug Weller ( talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Gareth, a number of us are having issues with the same user. I reported him for 3RR and am uncertain what to do next. Here's part of what I reported:
On the Yahweh page:
Several of us have tried to discuss WP:UNDUE issues with this user on his talk page:
He's also doing this kind of thing on other pages:
In any case, what's next? They guy isn't listening, and he's sucking up resources (and reverts) from a number of editors. Any ideas?
Thanks. SkyWriter ( talk) 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply. The admin who blocked Alleichem saw that I had made five reverts in the past month (two yesterday, two a month ago, and one in between) and he blocked me for good measure. In any case, I appreciate your help here, and I'll be glad to help you keep the peace as well. I'm not sure what the motivation is for proving something they admit they have no single manuscript to attest to (Aramaic priority). It's like Bigfoot. We'd all get excited to see real evidence for either Bigfoot or an Aramaic Matthew, but until a real body shows up... SkyWriter ( talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has been started for User:Alleichem. Since you have been a party to disputes with this user, it would be helpful if you could post your opinion there. - LisaLiel ( talk) 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Garzo, I had hit this site www.pronouncenames.com which is a reasonable site for name pronunciation and so I added it into the external links, similar to howsjay, after reading through Wikipedia's external link requirements & conditions... did I miss something that it has been removed?
— Tweedledum and Tweedledee ( talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Little confused here so you would be removing the howjsay link too? Does the same thing -- Tweedledum and Tweedledee ( talk) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Garzo, If there's anything in particular that you want have problems with my cleanup on the Monotheism page, post it on my talk. Let's try to make it better instead of fighting over reverts. Take care. VedicScience ( talk) 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, Thanks. I took care of the NPOV issue and removed 'dry monotheism' as you'd suggested. As I add more NPOV edits, please care to point out issues with "original research" (if any) or simply add-in "citation needed" and I'll take care of getting the research in for you. Hope this works~! VedicScience ( talk) 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Shlama Gareth, this is User:Chaldean, I have not signed on because I do not want to deal with the headache anymore. Just wanted to let you know that I have moved to Ankawa, and if their was anything you needed from the Churches here (pictures, books, etc) let me know and I'll try to get it to you. Also, if you ever decide to come, know you gotta a house to stay at :) You have my email I believe, so contact me through that, if not, let me know here. 84.11.141.3 ( talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you have sided with a disruptive member Skywriter, to defend views that no mention should be given to the fact that some very notable scholars believe that the Greek New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. These scholars have evidence for their views which cannot be refuted easily. Now, would you please reconsider your views? [ [12]] Much appreciated good friend. Kght ( talk) 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, i wonder if you have any information about the Syriac culture, such as Cuisine, music, art, litterature, language and add that to the article Aramean-Syriac people. I have contributed alot to the article but now im stuck and i wounder if you could contribute to the article? Thank you. AramaeanSyriac ( talk) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE-AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.
The article I edited was originally BC/AD, as of just last month, until a user changed it to BCE/CE. I was simply changing it back, which I believe is in full accordance with the quote above. I ask for you permission to revert it back. I apologize for not having used the "undo" button from that edit as it probably would have cleared this up. Cheers, LASirus ( talk) 06:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say what a great job you did on the Aramaic language article. It seems to very well written. However, would you explain - that how with all your knowledge on the subject - you side with Skywriter on the issue that the New Testament was definitely written in Greek?
You wrote: [13] "Aramaic was the native language of Jesus (see Aramaic of Jesus)." [14] Also you wrote "However, many consider it probable that there was a Hebrew and/or Aramaic layer beneath the Greek sources to the gospels and maybe parts of Acts.". So why are you being so hypocritical on the Yahweh article. You're siding with Skywriter who claims Aramic originals is similar to Big Foot! [ [15]] I feel you're being hypocritical. Kght ( talk) 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Dr. Hughes. There's a dispute ongoing at Battle of Opis about which translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle should be prioritised. It would be great if you can be involved as an expert linguist here: [16]. I know Akkadian and Old Aramaic are not exactly the same, but they are relatives and you might know someone that knows Akkadian. Also given your linguistic talents, it would help with regards to matter of weight. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Garzo,
Thank you so much for editing my additions to the Durham City entry with the de-capitalisation of the titles. This is my first time writing anything on here and I just wanted to know if the style was okay and I had cited right? I did everything from the Name section through Civil War and Commonwealth and Historic geography. Also, it seems like I have expanded the article by 50 per cent. Is this allowed as I don't want to be doing something I'm not allowed to!
Any advice much appreciated if you have the time.
Best wishes
Alex -- Aj.amatosi ( talk) 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to catch a scholar online. Glad you're here. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why did you lock the page? And why did you choose to keep the page that lacks resources and changes the resources that were already given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 October 2008
The present article is not the original and keeps getting changed by 2 or 3 users who constantly change several articles. They also just edit their discussion pages so that no one is able to have a discussion or reach a consensus. Quotes are also erased and replaced with ones that do not exist yet are still wrongfully cited. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Am6212 (
talk •
contribs)
20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
How does it become unprotected? Unless you actually do prefer a certain version... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just reverted a couple of edits to Aramaic dialect pages that added "and Aramaean-Syrians" to "Assyrians" because I recall some debate in the past about how the term "Assyrian" is inclusive. Now I'm second-guessing my memory. Is my memory bad? ( Taivo ( talk) 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
I've moved French (language) back to French language, which is correct according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages). I'm not sure what you read in MOS, but the interpretation was not the intended one. With controversial moves, it is best to hold a discussion on the article talk page first and post a notice at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This allows for a consensus among interested editors. — Gareth Hughes ( talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garzo/archive. |
This page contains archived discussions from
User talk:Garzo. They are kept here for information only, and all conversations are considered closed. To stop this page getting too long, older conversations can be found by date: |
Throughout the beginning years, I don't know how I ever lost your "Wiki respect" (and I don't know if you will ever see me as a trusted Wiki user.) But first I was wondering if you could give me your opinion regarding the creations of guidelines when it comes to the Aramaic/Syriac language - Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac)#Setting_rules.2Fguidelines; I know you have previously said Syriac is at its most strictly form, a reference to classical Syriac and not what Assyrians speak today. So I'm not sure if I have done it right or not. If you are interested in the topic, I hope you get a chance to read my latest work; Athura (I used a section of your's from Aramaic language.) Reviews/criticism are welcomed. Chaldean ( talk) 02:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[ [1]] among others. Chaldean ( talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fake as always, I think it was you and EliasAlucard who screwed up on this. I just provided a source wich states that he consider himselfs Aramean or Syriac, and not Assyrian as it was before I changed it (and with a source that didn't say anything about him being Assyrian). And look what I've found [4]. Chaldean changing it to Assyrian, with the comment "the source says assyrian". The TriZ ( talk) 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I was saying that it doesn't, have you read that? Go fight it out in other pages? It is you fighting and creating editwars. The TriZ ( talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello I need to do some research Can you give more information about jewish people who spoke aramaic language in villages around van lake? And if you share your source and tell me where you find these information,I would be happy.
Thank you B. Barokas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.254.85 ( talk) 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I never edited that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.212.96 ( talk) 09:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
HI I am informing you on the following discussions referring to the usage of diacritics on en.wiki. It seem there is a movement/campaign of some peple (moreover administrators) which try to eliminate them from the usage on en .wiki. Or at least to minimize , even for personal names in Latin script
Since I have seen your name in some discussions I thought it would be nice to inform you. Pay attention to the following pages : WP:UE , Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics and similar ones if you are interested. Anto ( talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Fair trade and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Garzo, last edit on Turkish Language was explained in talk page and is different from last reversions. The edit was represented by views of arguers on talk page. There is no edit war, discussion on talk page continues. Kaygtr ( talk) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your statements "partisan" and "unencyclopedic". The two articles in question present a lot of "revised history" or an attempt to rewrite the facts with propaganda. They have been edited with a attempt to present a false history, contrary to statements and facts already at hand. Eyewitnesses accounts and articles previous published disprove these edits. The truth is not always convenient. I know they attempt to cover up the facts in the movement, but they say they are more "scriptural" than the "pagan Christians". Then why not do what Paul did to those in his churches that were involved in incest and adultery? Their behavior is recorded for all time in the Bible. The Bible is not a book that covers up things, see David and Bathsheba. (I noticed that charges of adultery were left in the article, I wonder why? But the expanded historical version was deleted...hummm) I can pretty well guess the reason for trying to conceal the real historical facts, having been in the movement for over 3 decades. There is an agenda to rewrite history with a false history. Perhaps we should rewrite the history of the Popes as well so that their history looks better and they appear in a more "Godly" "holy" fashion? I can always tell when I am dealing with the SNM people, statements like "Jesus is the name of a pagan god" or connected to Zeus because "sus" is a pigs head, an offering to Zeus (Meyer). "God is the name of a pagan idol" "Christ is the name of a pagan god" (or as MEYER says it refers to sexual intercourse or a practice used to anoint prostitutes or gay folks --- just plain stupid). If your eyes are bugging out reading this, just think about those of us that are reading and listening to the tapes that have been put out by them, so we can get the actual facts. It takes days of reading and listening to tapes to come up with an accurate account.
And "ax grinding" (anyone who disagrees with us or our doctrine - they scream persecution or "I'm being attacked" and they really get irate when someone leaks the truth about thing on the inside out of the group...). I know too much to not have been is this movement for many many years..... PS how does one go about getting in contact with someone that is an editor here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.64.220 ( talk) 03:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Would like input on how to address the Anon and the vandalism on the SNM page? WEMUS ( talk) 10:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point me to a discussion which concerns this part of the infobox? There appears to be a recent discussion concerning Maltese classification itself, and it seems to have been decided to enter the other viewpoints in - so surely that means it wouldn't be wise for us to enforce the afro-asiatic family color onto the article. Cheers Poklopichika ( talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
On user has made these changes to the article. There are a few changes of nomenclature, but I don't see any real problem with it. — Gareth Hughes ( talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Garzo,
Yesterday I made some comments on Aramaic primacy along with a link to an article which discussed "Which Language Did Jesus Speak - Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek?" As Administrator you accused me of spamming and deleted my entire entry. My intention was to provide legitimate discussion material on this subject and provide a link for more information. You have also deleted previously entered web link that I inserted on other articles relative to Aramaic. My purpose is to provide unbiased information on Aramaic with an emphasis on the Peshitta. I am a novice user of Wikipedia and twice your biological age. Beyond deletions and threats do you have any other advice to offer me in the use of Wikipedia? Several years ago at a Syriac Symposium as well as in numerous discussions with Chaldean and Assyrian priests and scholars, I noticed that although many scholars do not acknowledge Dr. Lamsa's work openly because it goes against the grain of Western scholarship, privately they highly respect him and his work. I would like to enter into open dialog without my words being edited away. Would it be part of your vocation to assist?
Shlama Amkhon,
James J. DeFrancisco, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdefancisco ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Garzo,
Thank you for your clarifications. I understand that I violated Wikipedia policy but my motive was not to intentionally violate policy. The links you provided should prove to be useful in keeping me within compliance. You do seem to be very judgmental and biased. I mentioned that I am new to Wikipedia editing but I guess I should have explicitly told you that I just became aware of your entries and warnings. Your use of language is very interesting: "flawed collection of second-hand material", "stubbornness", "ignoring . . . ", etc. Were these remarks really legitimate and worthy of a scholar of your stature? I have read your facebook but have you read Mattai 5-7. It is unfortunate that numerous "flimsy scholars" may promote Aramaic Primacy. Actually, some of the "flimsy" scholars I spoke with have references and links in your article and you would know them and respect them. I don't mention their names because it would create some stress among the scholarly community and the conversations were private. None of them openly profess Aramaic Primacy. In any event, it has been very enlightening to communicate with you and, if your reactionary judgment is indicative of your church, I have added to my understanding of why the Anglican church has experienced so much division. By the way, I do not have "my book" on my website and only promote free articles, resources at nominal cost, and the works of others at this point in time. The main book on Aramaic Primacy that I promote on my site is NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN, a fairly well documented book by Lamsa. It is worthy of study even though it is a very simple book. You have produced an excellent feature article on Aramaic Language but your article on Aramaic Primacy is biased, in my opinion. Beyond that, communicating with you has been quite an experience.
Shlama,
James J. DeFrancisco, Ph.D. Jdefancisco ( talk) 20:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures| Jdefancisco ( talk) 20:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)]] comment added by Jdefancisco ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Garzo,
I have added 3 texts to the bibliography and, hopefully, you will find no fault with at least adding them. I have added no links or references to my website but these scholars are relevant to the subject and have diverse views which are valuable in researching this topic. I doubt you will have problems with Fitzmyer. I don't know how you feel about Torrey. And, I know, Lamsa was a nice guy but a unsatifactory scholar but he produced the best book on the subject of Aramaic Primacy in my opinion (even though I do not agree with all of his conclusions). If you have a problem with these additions, which I assure you were done in the interest of objectivity, please let me know before pulling the plug on me with your sanctions.
Dominus vobiscum,
Jamees J. DeFrancisco, Ph.D. Jdefancisco ( talk) 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. User:Getoar keeps reverting a compromise that User:Ijanderson977 came up with on the talk page of Serbian language, see compromise here [8] [9]. He has reverted the compromise twice within the past few days [10] [11]. I reverted him once, and I was tempted to revert him again, but I thought it would be better to come to you first. Thanks. -- Tocino, 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Maltese language is being visited by one or two sockpuppets of some of the previously banned users.Could you take a look? ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Garzo, I had a word with User:Pdfpdf about his revert of your edit and accompanying edit summary at Oddfellows. Deiz talk 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I had some (mild) concerns with a paragraph in the article which I briefly touched on in my comments on the article discussion page and I thought I would notify you since you wrote the material in that section and thought you might like to address it there if changes can (or should be) made to improve the article. Thanks. Awotter ( talk) 21:49, 27 August 2008
(UTC)
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot ( talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, do you know anything about use of (Classical) Syriac as a liturgical language in the following communities:
Thanks in advance. -- Koryakov Yuri ( talk) 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What OR did I put in this article? You deleted my referenced edit, and called your edit a minor edit. I'm confused. I can understand getting rid of Rktect stuff, which is what I'd done, replacing it with some sourced information. You'll see I've removed some stuff from Abronah also and tagged other claims which had no page numbers with nothing turning up on Google, maybe Rktect again. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you have protected various articles relating to the Illyrians, their language, culture etc, often with factual errors intact! While it is understandable that you do not desire edit wars, the fact remains that many claims/links/expressions in these articles have no cited sources/verification and are merely the POV of some rather vulgar editors. When asked for sources/proof etc as to why certain links are passages should remain in the article, they respond with personal insults and vague claims about "theories" and the like. Yet you have apparently seen fit to lock said articles with these baseless claims and statements still remaining! Attempts to discuss these issues o the relevant discussion pages have led to more personal insults and incoherent diatribes! Since these articles are now locked, I do feel it would be best to remove the controversial links, statements etc until such time as someone can give reliable sources that verify their inclusion, and not merely simple statements such as "that is what everyone knows". 41.245.165.140 ( talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. There is a discussion pertaining to one of your blocks at WP:ANI#Blocked?. Incidents arising from that discussion are Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dr Rgne and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Rgne. Just letting you know, in case you would like to comment. justinfr ( talk/ contribs) 18:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it was driving me crazy seeing all the vandalism. Did I read the edit summary right - you used Twinkle? I've got a day to go on my RfA and hopefully will get through it and will be able to protect articles like that when appropriate. There are a few that are getting a lot of IP vandalism recently (well, probably a lot, I'm just thinking of the ones I watch). Doug Weller ( talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Gareth, a number of us are having issues with the same user. I reported him for 3RR and am uncertain what to do next. Here's part of what I reported:
On the Yahweh page:
Several of us have tried to discuss WP:UNDUE issues with this user on his talk page:
He's also doing this kind of thing on other pages:
In any case, what's next? They guy isn't listening, and he's sucking up resources (and reverts) from a number of editors. Any ideas?
Thanks. SkyWriter ( talk) 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply. The admin who blocked Alleichem saw that I had made five reverts in the past month (two yesterday, two a month ago, and one in between) and he blocked me for good measure. In any case, I appreciate your help here, and I'll be glad to help you keep the peace as well. I'm not sure what the motivation is for proving something they admit they have no single manuscript to attest to (Aramaic priority). It's like Bigfoot. We'd all get excited to see real evidence for either Bigfoot or an Aramaic Matthew, but until a real body shows up... SkyWriter ( talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has been started for User:Alleichem. Since you have been a party to disputes with this user, it would be helpful if you could post your opinion there. - LisaLiel ( talk) 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Garzo, I had hit this site www.pronouncenames.com which is a reasonable site for name pronunciation and so I added it into the external links, similar to howsjay, after reading through Wikipedia's external link requirements & conditions... did I miss something that it has been removed?
— Tweedledum and Tweedledee ( talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Little confused here so you would be removing the howjsay link too? Does the same thing -- Tweedledum and Tweedledee ( talk) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Garzo, If there's anything in particular that you want have problems with my cleanup on the Monotheism page, post it on my talk. Let's try to make it better instead of fighting over reverts. Take care. VedicScience ( talk) 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, Thanks. I took care of the NPOV issue and removed 'dry monotheism' as you'd suggested. As I add more NPOV edits, please care to point out issues with "original research" (if any) or simply add-in "citation needed" and I'll take care of getting the research in for you. Hope this works~! VedicScience ( talk) 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Shlama Gareth, this is User:Chaldean, I have not signed on because I do not want to deal with the headache anymore. Just wanted to let you know that I have moved to Ankawa, and if their was anything you needed from the Churches here (pictures, books, etc) let me know and I'll try to get it to you. Also, if you ever decide to come, know you gotta a house to stay at :) You have my email I believe, so contact me through that, if not, let me know here. 84.11.141.3 ( talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you have sided with a disruptive member Skywriter, to defend views that no mention should be given to the fact that some very notable scholars believe that the Greek New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. These scholars have evidence for their views which cannot be refuted easily. Now, would you please reconsider your views? [ [12]] Much appreciated good friend. Kght ( talk) 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, i wonder if you have any information about the Syriac culture, such as Cuisine, music, art, litterature, language and add that to the article Aramean-Syriac people. I have contributed alot to the article but now im stuck and i wounder if you could contribute to the article? Thank you. AramaeanSyriac ( talk) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE-AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.
The article I edited was originally BC/AD, as of just last month, until a user changed it to BCE/CE. I was simply changing it back, which I believe is in full accordance with the quote above. I ask for you permission to revert it back. I apologize for not having used the "undo" button from that edit as it probably would have cleared this up. Cheers, LASirus ( talk) 06:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say what a great job you did on the Aramaic language article. It seems to very well written. However, would you explain - that how with all your knowledge on the subject - you side with Skywriter on the issue that the New Testament was definitely written in Greek?
You wrote: [13] "Aramaic was the native language of Jesus (see Aramaic of Jesus)." [14] Also you wrote "However, many consider it probable that there was a Hebrew and/or Aramaic layer beneath the Greek sources to the gospels and maybe parts of Acts.". So why are you being so hypocritical on the Yahweh article. You're siding with Skywriter who claims Aramic originals is similar to Big Foot! [ [15]] I feel you're being hypocritical. Kght ( talk) 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Dr. Hughes. There's a dispute ongoing at Battle of Opis about which translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle should be prioritised. It would be great if you can be involved as an expert linguist here: [16]. I know Akkadian and Old Aramaic are not exactly the same, but they are relatives and you might know someone that knows Akkadian. Also given your linguistic talents, it would help with regards to matter of weight. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Garzo,
Thank you so much for editing my additions to the Durham City entry with the de-capitalisation of the titles. This is my first time writing anything on here and I just wanted to know if the style was okay and I had cited right? I did everything from the Name section through Civil War and Commonwealth and Historic geography. Also, it seems like I have expanded the article by 50 per cent. Is this allowed as I don't want to be doing something I'm not allowed to!
Any advice much appreciated if you have the time.
Best wishes
Alex -- Aj.amatosi ( talk) 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to catch a scholar online. Glad you're here. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why did you lock the page? And why did you choose to keep the page that lacks resources and changes the resources that were already given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 October 2008
The present article is not the original and keeps getting changed by 2 or 3 users who constantly change several articles. They also just edit their discussion pages so that no one is able to have a discussion or reach a consensus. Quotes are also erased and replaced with ones that do not exist yet are still wrongfully cited. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Am6212 (
talk •
contribs)
20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
How does it become unprotected? Unless you actually do prefer a certain version... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just reverted a couple of edits to Aramaic dialect pages that added "and Aramaean-Syrians" to "Assyrians" because I recall some debate in the past about how the term "Assyrian" is inclusive. Now I'm second-guessing my memory. Is my memory bad? ( Taivo ( talk) 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
I've moved French (language) back to French language, which is correct according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages). I'm not sure what you read in MOS, but the interpretation was not the intended one. With controversial moves, it is best to hold a discussion on the article talk page first and post a notice at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This allows for a consensus among interested editors. — Gareth Hughes ( talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)