User talk:Michael Paul Heart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Michael Paul Heart! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles


I did not write the article "Tahash" but drawing on my expertise in historical research I have made extensive supportive and corrective contributions to it since October 2010. Much of what I have contributed, in the form of a careful summary of information from verifiable, documented, reputable, published secondary and tertiary sources, has been rejected multiple times by some editors as "Original Research", or has been rejected multiple times as a novel synthesis of information ("novel conclusion"), or has been rejected multiple times as derived from "dubious sources" (worthless, without merit). See TROLL. The following list of links by date to previous versions of the article is intended to offer a handy means of comparison.

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Tahash. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Pontificalibus (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Tahash, you may be blocked from editing. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, please do thoroughly read the policy at WP:SYN and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Your contributions are valued but you seem to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is designed to publish. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article Tahash has gotten out of hand. May I suggest a solution? Here's a way to get the best of both worlds: copy and paste the entire article as a free Google knol (which has a GREAT interface with pictures, links, headings etc -- it looks great). That should be your primary article -- and you can invite others to help you contribute there, but you'll control it. Nobody can fuss with the content. Then, the Wikipedia article should be trimmed SUBSTANTIALLY (if you wish to keep something here), perhaps a few paragraphs, explaining briefly what tahash is, WHY it's notable, and insisting that an external link point to the Tahash Google knol. That would satisfy both Wikipedia's needs and yours, wouldn't it? I'm trying to be helpful. But at this rate, a battle will ensue in which the article may end up getting deleted, and users blocked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There are far larger articles than this one with far more detail, and they haven't been deleted. I have tried to revise the article to make it as brief as the historical facts of etymological change presented over 45 centuries has allowed. Occasionally, I have been able to trim it down and make it more NPOV. My prime concern has been historical integrity: how we got from there to here, from blue dye processing to a multi-colored unicorn of the desert to dugong hides and back to blue-processed, even blue-beaded, skins. I have reached consensus with other editors from time-to-time.
The greatest resistance I have encountered has been to historically documented facts that do not solely support the current cultural Jewish conviction that the tahash has always been an animal of a unique kind as represented in Rabbinical literature. Every pretext allowed by a technically literal fault-finding abuse of Wikipedia policies has been used to remove this material. This has been particularly evident in the reversion of citation of actual Jewish sources that do not translate tahash as an animal before the 2nd century CE, but as primarily the color midnight blue or indigo. There was recently a listing of such sources reverted as "not verifiable" and "not from a reliable source" and from a "private page". I let the reversion go and researched the origins of the listing I had obtained from the rejected site. I googled "Avraham ben HaRambam," "Saadia," "Ibn Janah," "Arukh," "tahash," "black leather", "blue dye", all together, then looked at the articles and encyclopedias and footnotes, put the information in my own words, and have just now finished adding the information in brief sections of historical context with citations in footnotes of the sources that were referenced or implicitly used by the rejected sites: Saadia Gaon, Jonah ibn Janah, Nathan ben Jehiel, the Aruk, Abraham Maimon Ha-Nagid.
One of the banners placed over the head of the article requested readers to verify sources cited. Instead of verifying the sources cited, which is what I have just done, the sources cited were editor rejected apparently without seeking for any verification (which they do have) and were simply reverted without good reason, and on the talk page I have pointed out the error in the reasons given in the edit summaries. Some of them were simply false. A friend of mine told me not to use reason, but say, "you said this, but it doesn't fit the facts, which are these—".
Wikipedia is committed to presenting all points of view, neutrally. Attempts to remove some points of view that can be verified from responsible, reputable, published second-hand and third-hand sources, are counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. 45 centuries of semantic change does not lend itself to brief treatment. The article was much more intricately convoluted and wordy when I found it in October, and it desperately needed NPOV revision. As it stands now, a lot of deadwood has been removed, more Jewish documented sources have been cited for various contrasting interpretations of the word tahash from giraffe to black skins, and as it stands now no one particular conclusion has been presented. The current meaning of tahash as a legendary, unique, one-horned, special creation now hidden away or extinct is presented along with other interpretations. It is not the Biblical interpretation, however, since none of the translations of the Bible include it in their texts, as can be seen from the list of Bible Translations.
Finally, I know from reading Wikipedia guidelines, editing essays, and policies that disagreement with material presented will occur and that this is no reason to revert it. Likewise, if more substantive sources are reasonably demanded they ought to be provided if available. But disagreement with the POV of a source cited and verified does not make the source unverifiable or unreliable. Even minor points of view can be included according to Policy. I am also well-aware of the meaning of Original Research: If another source does not reach the conclusion presented in the article, the conclusion does not belong in this encyclopedia. I point out that the sequence of historical facts presented in the Etymology as it is now does not constitute Original Research, but deliberate exclusion of documented facts does—if the reader does not like the conclusion the sequence APPEARS to present to the reader, that alone does not justify reversion or deletion: they are bringing their own conclusion to the material; it is not in the article.
The suggestion that this article be placed elsewhere removes it from Wikipedia. The suggestion that it can be abbreviated, as stated, eliminates actual facts and meanings from the article which are included in the word tahash. Without even brief mention of sequence or context, the interpretation of some of the Sages and Bible scholars will readily appear stupid or incomprehensible. While the article is not supposed to be a chapter from a text book, or a professorial treatise, respect for the reader demands at least a representative overview of the subject. I believe that's Wikipedia, and I believe that now, at last, this article has been brought to that point. If there is no vandalizing reversion of verifiable material from third-party sources reputable and published, I'm fairly satisfied with the balanced view of the article as it now stands, and I foresee no immediate need for me to contribute anything more to it. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
My experience with Wikipedia has been that the community will exert its influence regardless of anything you and I write here. You're happy with the current version. Most Wikipedians (probably) won't be; in their eyes, your writing looks like a religious text or a terminology manual of some sort. It doesn't look like it belongs here in Wikipedia. And if it's you up against the community, the community will have its way. While this subject is incredibly interesting to you, to most people (including fellow contributors), they are profoundly uninterested in it, so it becomes painful for them to even begin to think about it, let alone get into the nuances of meanings. But Wikipedians can't ignore your contributions either. Since your article appears profoundly different from most everything else here at Wikipedia, that alone will rub people the wrong way. What will happen most likely is that people with greater editing privileges here will be irked by your article, particularly as it grows longer (and means more possible work for them to have to wade through which they are loathe to do), and left alone, the article will (probably) be deleted. I'm trying to find a way for you to say what you wish, that's all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Anything having to do with the Tanakh/Bible will seem like a religious text. Anything having to do with word etymology will seem like a terminology manual. The subject of religion and culturo-religious concerns irritates and antagonizes a lot of people today. But it's not my article anyway. I got interested in it because of my interest and expertise in historical research. The article may appear to you to be profoundly different from most everything else that you yourself normally read about in Wikipedia, but there are an abundance of Wiki articles with the same "sound" and "look" as Tahash, and with greater length, which a lot of people, including myself, find difficult to "wade through" and understand in one sitting: Authorized King James Version, Islam, Christianity, Kosher, Consecration, Catholicism, Zohar, Bible, Atheism, Mental health, Mammal, Creation.... There are plenty of contemporary types who are profoundly uninterested in them, who couldn't care less and who wouldn't give them any attention, but that does not make these articles candidates for deletion. That's O.K.—the reader doesn't have to read them. Wikipedia also includes long articles on what many people consider trivialities, but are consuming interests for the contributors: Pornography, Comic books, Linguistics, History of Science, Particle decay, Sports, Culture, Motion Pictures, Entertainment, Hobby, Woodworking.... The subject matter may seem to you to be outside the focus of an encyclopedia of knowledge, but that's a personal opinion determined entirely by your own point of view of what is interesting and "notable". See Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments#Specialist topics are often not notable in the sense of being well known. I think we can leave it to the WP:administrators and WP:stewards to determine the fate of Tahash. The view of historians and linguists among them will probably be decisive. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The view of the community will prevail. Big difference between Tahash and Authorized King James Version. Tahash => only one or two contributors; KJames => numerous contributors. Tahash => doesn't feel encyclopedic. KJames => encyclopedic. Tahash => presumes people are interested, doesn't say how the subject is notable, essentially a text book approach, doesn't bring in new people; dubious sourcing. KJames => I'm much much more likely to trust the information since it has perspective, conflicting views, etc. I'm a fairly well read person. I've been all around the block in terms of beliefs, politics. After reading the first paragraph, I was shaking my head -- what's this subject all about? It goes into specifics before properly setting the context. IF your aim is to teach about this subject, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here, alienating readers rather than winning them over. It's not your fault. You're trying here. The problem is ==> you're too close to the subject, you need intelligent distance. I'm really trying to help here, but I don't think you're receptive to what I'm saying. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Then you are interested in the article because it presents conflicting views, says right away that the topic has been debated and argued for centuries (last sentence of lead paragraph), and the sources (Talmud, Translations, encyclopedic citations, scholars' works) are not dubious by any means. You make a good case for retention. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the subject of Tahash might be worth keeping if it is treated responsibly. Right now it's not. I know you've got your heart into this, and you feel it's important, and you've done a LOT of writing about this. And, as one writer to another, I want you to win here, and for you to preserve your writing, and for you to have a chance to share your thinking with the world. But right now you're not doing it the right way. You're alienating the Wikipedia community by not working within its rules about original research or extended POV pieces or about what Wikipedia isn't. What I'm saying is: you're setting up a situation in which it'll be much easier for people, frustrated with attempts to rein you in, that they find it's easier to delete the article or block you as a user. I again urge you to heed my suggestions about finding a win-win approach here, such as trimming the WP Tahash article, working with me to get the first paragraphs in better shape, and ensuring there are links to your full article (and under your control) as a Google knol. Your not listening forces me to oppose you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Your statement that the article presumes people are interested and that it does not say how the subject is notable has caused a great deal of laughter here at your expense, since you appear to assume that no one is interested in the Bible, that no one is interested in Hebrew, that no one is interested in Jewish culture and folklore, that no one is interested in either the Talmud or Rabbinical literature, that no one is interested in the materials used in making the Tabernacle or in their symbolism, that no one is interested in Bible translations and the accuracy of interpretation of ancient documents, that no one is curious about other multiple points of view, and that it wouldn't interest anthropologists and archaeologists, or Jews and Christians and Bible students. Utterly incredible! Your reasoning reminds me of Pontificalibus. Hoo-Hah! Wow! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Google knols[edit]


It's my belief that all of us, and I mean all of us, including myself, including administrators, including you -- everybody -- here at Wikipedia have some kind of agenda to advocate or push, even if the agenda means having no agenda, supposedly. Know what I mean? So what invariably happens here is that differing agendas bump into each other. The idea of neutrality -- well that's something we strive for -- but I think it's hard to define -- and what ends up happening is that when things we think are right we see as neutral, and opposing views as radical, and this is a formula for endless bickering! What I think happens is, despite everything, Wikipedia works out to be an interesting place, and the material is generally good because of the competing agendas. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So I urge you to open up a free Google account and write a knol. The mechanics are somewhat easy. The look of it is amazing. You can add links and pictures and text and references. If you can figure out how to write in Wikipedia, you can write there too. You can invite (or disinvite) other editors if you wish, as well as see changes. Last, when ready, I urge you to trim down the article in Wikipedia substantially to perhaps a few paragraphs -- introduce the subject, say why it's notable, use secondary sources, and then at the bottom put an "External link" pointing to your knol as further information. So, readers interested, if unsatisfied with the Wikipedia treatment, can visit your knol. Such is my advice. Good luck! If I can help, let me know.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Tahash. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Be careful with what you call vandalism, please--I don't refer to your edits as vandalism either. And I read your references, with a keen appreciation for the imperative to use secondary sources that address the topic and the injunction for us editors not to engage in synthesis and original research. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I am very careful about what I call vandalism, particularly in cases of reverting edits that have nonsense for their reason. I have never used "vandalism" without giving evidence of cause. My edits aren't vandalism because they have solid verifiable sources, and the material text I contribute is a careful summary in my own words of what I find in the sources, without OR. Let's look at one of yours.
Joe407 pointed out in his reversion of your edit that Saadia Gaon is a secondary reliable source, which you reverted as needing a secondary source. That is just one symptom of a wider disorder displayed by your reverts to the article and the edit summaries you submitted with them. Anyone who reads the sources and references and the text you reverted can see that. When a man says there are no sources, in the presence of sources he says don't exist, his opinions carry no weight.
And saying that verifiable, reputable published sources need a source, and asking what is the relevance of a translation of a word to the word being translated and discussed, and requiring verification of published translations of the Bible, shows very little evidence of good faith. On the contrary, it's evidence that this encyclopedia and the integrity of information in its articles is not what actually interests you—because the material you removed in your edits would not then so evidently contradict what you say in your edit summaries. Requiring verification that published Bible translations exist is absurd!! Nevertheless, verifying external links are also provided in the articles on each of those translations, not to mention the source represented by the external link to the Bible Verse Finder (bibref). The relevance of the list is the fact that it demonstrates directly to the reader the multiple translations of a single important word, showing that there is no one definitive meaning of "tachash".
When you say we know what etymology is, you're not speaking for all the readers, some of whom have no idea what it means without a brief, informative, immediately available explanation. It also serves as a second statement of the subject of the article.
As for example in the case of Saadia Gaon as the actual secondary source for the translation "giraffe" and "zemer", when you said a secondary source was needed: You Don't Know What You're Talking About. He is the secondary source, and he has a formidable historical reputation to boot!
Asking what is the relevance of the Akkadian cognate root of the Hebrew and Egyptian word for treating leather, obtained from the reliable scholarly Anchor Bible Series which demonstates the connection to tahash and its ancient meaning (an integral part of the core of the subject of the article), citing professional Semitic scholarship—asking "what is the relevance" ignores the relevance to the subject immediately evident in the text from the verifiably sourced fact that t-h-s "tahash" has the ancient meaning of "a leather process".
And putting the question-mark to the statement that Gesenius cites Bondi in the ISBE would not be necessary if you had actually bothered (verification) to read the ISBE article all the way to the end.
Deliberate vandalism or not, your edits were without justification or reason. They look like vandalism. And as vandalism they were reverted, because you reverted without reason and without evidence of caring to check the verifiable sources cited. This makes your claim to have carefully read the references quite unbelievable. And that is evidence of a real lack of "good faith" and more of evidence of "intent". Wikipedia requires that verification be sought. You didn't even heed the fact that the verification was right in front of you. You didn't apparently ask who Saadia Gaon is (and the linked Wikipedia article with linked external sources was available!)—you simply reverted his translation as "needs a secondary source", when he himself is the secondary source for the translation. Joe407 pointed this out very clearly.
So much for the "false charge of vandalism". --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Michael - please do not hitch a ride on my Saadia Gaon point. I can understand why an editor would see a Gaon as a primary source but I chose to take issue with that understanding. I do not think this calls for statements on your part of "You Don't Know What You're Talking About" to an editor who is trying to improve an article. Sometimes the best editing is trimming. Joe407 (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Joe, your point about Gaon is well-taken. Whether it is really relevant to the topic is another matter (I'm still not sure what the topic of the article is; the color swatches suggest that maybe Category:Colour schemes should be added), but I appreciate your oversight and thank you for it. Michael, your response here is in line with the article itself: too long, too much trivial detail. What the Akkadian words were for leather treatment, or what the distance is that a giraffe can run across the Sahara without stopping for a drink, that's simply irrelevant. If you really think that sections like Tahash#A_view_of_the_current_meanings_of_.22tahash.22 are encyclopedic, and that a picture of a badger helps the reader in understanding tahash, then you might need to reconsider what Wikipedia is. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You removed almost entirely the historical data that tahash indicated a glaucous blue-grey color like that common to both sea-mammals and antelopes, and the fact that the KJV translators chose badger as the meaning of tahash and that this little animal is also blue-grey makes inclusion of the visual confirmation of this fact relevant. The available historical evidence shows that tukhesh and tachash are cognates related to color. Your pre-emptive removal of the ancient evidence, followed by your observation that the glaucous-colored badger is (now) irrelevant to the subject of the article is the same thing as using Wikipedia to confirm Wikipedia. "It's not in the article, therefore it's not relevant." (But it was, so it is.) I don't think engineering the absence of supportive documented historical evidence from an article in order to support your observation that the item is irrelevant and out of place in the article is NPOV. Your reasoning and language structure resembles the reasoning behind the apparent agenda of Pontificalibus, that there is only one meaning of the word tachash. It also reminds me of the crafting of an agenda by Hermitstudy with the article as a podium for his POV, that the scholars are inconsistent and hypocritical fools. An encyclopedia is inclusive of all knowledge. You need to come to terms with that. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"What's this article about?" (blue-grey badgers and other critters)[edit]

<--Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. As long as no one has published (besides you, in this article) on the remarkable coincidence that the glaucous blue-white color of some mammals is not unlike the blue-grey color of the badger, it has no business being in here. What is this about, anyway? And when did the blue-grey colored badger (your first sentence) become glaucous-colored (your third sentence)? Seriously, what is this article about? The translation of a term? Drmies (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

YES! —And I have read WP:SYNTHESIS. (It helped me recently when I was getting rid of Hermitstudy's slanted presentation of the material.)
Now, regarding "glaucous" coloring: The term Glaucous simply means "blue-grey", just as indigo or azure means blue, and slate or ash means grey. The badger has a glaucous coloring, and it becomes blue-grey shortly before maturity. Since when? Since then. It's natural for them to be blue-grey. The KJV translators say tachash means "badger", so they are the publishers, along with Rashi, that the blue-grey badger is the tachash. All pictures of badgers show the same coloring. Other translators say that the porpoise, dolphin, dugong, sea cow, seal, are the tachash, and they are blue-grey in color. You said nothing about the blue-grey antelopes pictured. All of them, sea and land critters, are blue-grey. And all of them have been proposed as the tachash. The photos show that the glaucous coloring of these creatures is no synthesis invented by me, and I didn't take the pictures. (And I didn't put them there to refute your contention that it is an example of synthesis.) Your contention is like saying that an article without pictures never mentioned that certain celebrities wore clothes to the interview. You are cavilling over a technicality ("no valid reasons") because you haven't given, and can't give, a substantial reason for removing the material or for making the (unsubstantiated) case that it is totally irrelevant—because it is relevant. And if, as you say, you've never figured out until now that the article is about all the various translations and meanings and important spiritual-religious significance of the word through the centuries because no one today knows with complete certainty what it meant back then (so we look at the ancient translations and interpretations), then it looks like you weren't paying attention when you read the intro lead stating that the meaning has been debated for centuries and has several different meanings today (with an internal link to the section listing all of 'em—except the section on the Jewish Legendary animal, which you removed). You need to think about what you are reading before jumping to conclusions and reverting material that you don't like, a practice that seriously compromises the integrity of this encyclopedia. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There is more here than I can shake a stick at. But let me just pick one thing: "The photos show that the glaucous coloring of these creatures is no synthesis invented by me." No, they don't show that. I don't see anything glaucous there--it's all blueish grey to me. My wife can laugh at me for not being able to tell my mauve from my taupe, but here on WP it's a different game: you are to prove with secondary resources that there is something here. Showing a bunch of pictures does not help you prove a point. As for my not being able to tell what this article was supposed to be about--I'm sure I'm not the only one; see the article's talk page. It is so dense, so full of references in the text, in footnotes, in notes, to primary sources; so impossible to follow in its quotes inside quotes with redundant bold and italics and sometimes wikilinked bold and italics; so confused in its main argument that it throws in lists of biblical translations haphazardly as if a. that proved anything b. that were encyclopedic and c. it had a function in the development of the prose; so full of seemingly trivial detail about giraffes and badgers (who apparently were misnamed taxonomically in the 16th century?) and Sahara deserts and sea mammals; "enlightened" with color swatches that look all the same to me and apparently serve to illustrate graphically what someone said a certain shade of blue-green-grey slate looked like, or could have looked like, or should have looked like, that I completely lost track. It is easier to follow my daughter's seemingly random account of what happened at school today than it is to follow this--and this is written! Of course, you can tell me I cain't read--you're welcome to do so, and you may be right. But I have read lots of things, including manuals translated from Chinese by robots and freshman composition papers from functionally illiterate students, so I have some experience. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, if you really feel that my edits are disruptive to the project, that they mar an otherwise perfectly good encyclopedic article and that I'm a troll, that they are vandalism, then report me at AIV or ANI. If you don't, kindly refrain from calling me names. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011[edit]

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Tahash, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The ISBN numbers are proof that the cited sources are not unpublished. You should read them. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the sources, the problem is your synthesis in linking them to the subject of the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree. This is asinine, and the fact that I am tempted to explain why (and actually tried to do so in an edit summary) is evidence of how far we've gotten into the Twilight Zone here. I'm not sure what the next step is. You seem to be unwilling to understand and address the problems; whether this is an intentional misunderstanding and failure to communicate, I don't know. It's certainly disruptive, and I'm going to ask for advice on how to proceed--WP:AIV, WP:ANI, or even WP:RFC. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The subject as an animal is a unicorn. The Sages of the Talmud and Rashi himself say it is. So it belongs in that category too. The Hebrew word "Tahash" is already categorized with colors (blue, black, reddish-yellow dusu), and with animals in the Bible.
It will be impossible for you to contend that the tahash—as a one-horned legendary animal—is not an ancient unicorn, against the opinions of the Sages who say that it is. It is not disruptive to include that fact, and the information that supports it. It is disruptive to keep reverting it WP:3RR as you did today, without cause (and to claim that published books are "unpublished material").
It is you, rather, who have the burden of proving from published reputable sources that the Elasmotherium is not a unicorn (it is), or that it is utterly excluded as a possible candidate for identification with the tahash (it isn't), or that it cannot be the tahash, "for the following reasons...." or some such similar language (and no published source has specifically said so—I've done the search.) Statements from reputable Rabbinic sources would be good enough. (Even Natan Slifkin, if you can get him to respond. I've considered it.) You have not done that. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Find me a reliable source that says that tahash=unicorn=elasmotherium. A reliable secondary source. I don't think that Exotic Zoology (does he even mention the tahash, or is it just you who make the link from the one-horned animal to the unicorn to the glaucous skin of the badger?) or any other cryptozoological book counts in this respect. I don't have to prove that anything is "utterly excluded"--you have to prove (with reliable, secondary sources) that it is included. I think you just don't understand what original research and synthesis mean on Wikipedia, or you refuse to understand it. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I did. Sources were cited. The tahash is a unicorn. Unicorn includes Elasmotherium. It is not the only one. I vindicated with historical testimony that the speculations of the Rabbis were not simply a fantasy of myth fabricated out of thin air without any kind of foundation in reality, but were based on a historical reality that others in ancient times also knew and to which they bore witness in their writings. You now have to demonstrate that you have substantiating documentation refuting this, as grounds for a "reasonable revert" per Wikipedia policy on "blanking, illegitimate". It is revealing that you did not take this to the talk page. I mean you have a real sense that you don't have a solid case that will stand up to others' scrutiny, so you have put it here instead. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we're done here. Feel free to copy all of this to the talk page of the article and any other place you like. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You left a note on my user talk page asking me to comment at Tahash. In terms of content, you can assume that I am likely to agree with whatever JFW says. In terms of process, I'd like to take a minute to explain a few things about Wikipedia's workings that are not usually very clear to people:

  • WP:BRD is not a mandatory process. It's an essay, which means it's a non-binding recommendation from some editors to other editors. You may follow that process—I recommend it, as I frequently find it highly effective—but it is not required. If you are going to follow it, then I'd like you to notice that "reverting to my own version" does not appear anywhere in BRD. The person following BRD makes one, single edit to the article, and then doesn't touch it. If the discussion shows support for your version, then someone else will restore your work (or will directly and explicitly invite you to do so).
  • Edit warring, however, is a policy, and complying with it is mandatory. You're going to end up WP:BLOCKed if you don't knock it off. You might wish to read WP:There is no deadline, and remind yourself that whether Wikipedia gets 'fixed' this week or next really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
  • Waiting just two hours for a response, and then declaring that you've won the argument because the other side defaulted, is silly. Don't you sleep for more than two hours at a time? Would you be happy if you went to sleep one night, and woke up to find an editor had declared you to be no longer interested, on the grounds that you hadn't stayed up the entire night to argue with him? Most editors not only sleep every single day, but have real lives that involve being away from their computers for hours at a time. We have editors in every time zone, and people who do shift work and thus have unpredictable schedules. Some of them even go on vacation. A silence of less than 24 hours is meaningless. Most people wait an entire week before assuming the other person is no longer interested. I suggest that you adopt a similar standard.
  • If you are having trouble figuring out what a secondary source is, you might read WP:Party and person. Quite a lot of people have difficulty separating "third-party" from "secondary source". (The best sources, of course, are both third-party and secondary, but those are separate considerations.)

Good luck to you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi Michael. I have noticed some parallels between your editing and that of User:Hermitstudy. Is this an old account of yours? If so, it is considered courteous to inform other editors about other accounts, especially when you are editing in the same areas as your prior account. See WP:CLEANSTART. Would appreciate your comments, and please correct me if I am wrong, The Interior (Talk) 05:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This same observation / complaint / charge has been made before. It's not an old account of mine. I'm not Hermitstudy. I began using this used computer in October of last year (it was given to me as a gift from my parents who got it from a friend in my church who gets donations of no-longer-needed computers from colleges, universities and schools), and I came across this article Tahash, which interested me because of its anthropological subject matter. After the shock of later being accused of being Hermitstudy last year ("Who's that?!"), I looked at the edits and went to his talk page and accessed the history of his blanked pages. He is to all appearances a linguist of some note. I'm not. I'm an amateur researcher and historian and anthropologist. My own areas of interest over the past 40 years overlap the areas he discussed in his particular (peculiar) version of Tahash. (It appears he left angry and frustrated just about the time I arrived.) I later disagreed with his particular agenda (once I noticed what it was) and tried to improve the article by cleaning up his Synthesis and his Original conclusions, which other editors said would have been more appropriate in a journal paper or book for publication, and I agree. Our areas of study probably overlap and after decades of reading the same kind of books and papers the effect of that on the brain might produce the same kind of reading or expression. That most likely accounts for some similarity and parallels of expression. I understand logical fallacies and failures to do enough digging to support conclusions. I was able to follow most of his reasoning but not all the way to his particular (subtly implied) conclusions. He's certainly better educated than I am. I've read articles and papers and encyclopedias by people who proposed theories of their own on shaky grounds that were later demolished by other researchers with better evidence and documentation. I'm familiar with the pattern. So I can usually see if someone is jumping to a false conclusion, or if they are disguising an agenda with a thin cover of specious reasoning or explanation, or are trying to push a particular point of view (or remove one they don't like). According to Wikipedia policy I try to take the time and trouble necessary to explain with good solid reasons why I've made an edit or revert, or explain why another editor's edit or revert or reasoning is in error or why it doesn't apply. I'm sure that's frustrating for anyone who just wants to remove material they don't like and can't think of a good reason to support what they've done. As for the issue of "multiple accounts": I don't use another computer, and I don't have another account. ("Don't take me for Hitler just because I have a mustache!")
I hope this answers your question. I always try to explain fully my reasons. I suppose I get that from the stuff I've been reading for the past several decades, and it's become a part of me. Can't help it. I've explained all this before, to others who asked the same question or made the same charge. There was a charge some time ago that I was 'sock-puppeting' and was in fact Hermitstudy but it wasn't true and the administrators who looked into it said there was no evidence of it. The charge was brought by some editors (or a sock-puppeting editor) who could not support the vandalism they were committing (he was committing) which was apparently intended to get rid of some material they didn't like (he didn't like), or that they thought (he thought) implied a conclusion they could not tolerate (he could not tolerate). A friend of mine told me not to use logical reason with people like that but just point out that they said "this" but what they said don't fit the facts which are "these". It really works! (He said he's run across guys like that on Wikipedia before and they're probably bored and really need to get a life big time! and that's why he stopped getting involved.)
The only question I have here now is if you meant that the actual edits to the article Tahash resemble the edits of Hermitstudy or if you mean that the comments I've made on the Talk page of the article Tahash sound exactly like Hermitstudy. ? (If they do, I'd almost regard it as a kind of accidental compliment to my intelligence and reasoning! —and I don't have any Degrees.)
I'll get back in a couple days. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed answer. You mentioned that an admin had looked into this matter and had found no evidence. That was not the case. A WP:SPI was declined because User:Hermitstudy is no longer active. We are all here to work together, and should endeavour to be honest with each other. If you continue to maintain that account is not your own, that is your prerogative. I will have to AGF that that is the case. The Interior (Talk) 07:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Tahash" article stablized by block[edit]

I had just (16:41) submitted (unsuccessfully) a minor edit to a footnote, to clarify that the link made there to Navigating the Bible II Exodus 25:5 footnote to "blue-processed skins" lists—

"Teynun (blue), 'black leather", ermine (glaksinon, galy axienon), weasel, badger, keresh, wild ram, antelope, okape, giraffe, narwhal, sea cow, dugong, and seal (Pliny, Naturalia Historiæ)."

Apparently edits to that article are currently blocked. This is quite satisfactory to me, since the article itself is almost entirely complete, as it is now. (16:41, 27 March 2011). I had intended afterward to make some additional minor spelling adjustments according to the actual spelling in texts cited in the article: " o " to " ö ", and " u " to " ü ", and " s " to " š ". Also perhaps link existing footnotes to each of the images in the "Tahash Gallery". These can wait.

I am more pleased that information of an encyclopedic character (inclusive of all possible relevant viewpoints) was not removed before the block was activated. I like to think that the article will now remain as it is long enough for Wikipedia administrators, other editors, and general readers to evaluate its substantially encyclopedic overview of the subject, also blocking any disruptive "revisionist" edits intended to remove historical information and points of view prejudicially rejected by some editors as having "no relevance to the subject" (but are included by the cited sources mentioning "tahash/tachash").

Now—prior to the block:

Once I had found that "zoo rabbi" Natan Slifkin in 2007 before the existence of this article had explicitly set forth the link between "unicorn" and "tahash" (as did the Encyclopaedia Judaica) in the Talmud and Rabbinic writings and that he listed the same proposed meanings as did the editors of the Jewish Navigating the Bible II footnote to "blue-processed skins", I went back to previous versions of the article and retrieved information that had previously been strongly rejected as having "no secondary and third-party verification", which now can be demonstrated in citations of sources in the article to have that supportive verification. This includes the additional useful visual information provided by the "Tahash Gallery", which I somewhat modified and expanded (adding the ganet, and the ermine and weasel, and the wild ram according to Rabbinical speculations), for immediate visual reference to each of the proposed meanings in the body of the article. I think that if the inclusion of the revised Gallery is challenged, then the same kind of request for opinions that was made regarding the retention or exclusion of the chronological "ordering" of "Linguistic origins and possible translations", will likewise show consensus on the actual usefulness or uselessness of the Tahash Gallery of images, and it can then be retained or removed accordingly.

Except for the very minor edits proposed above (spelling, images linked to referenced sources) I think the article can stand alone right now as a fairly complete encyclopedia entry. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"Mos' peculiar ! " Older version comes up first[edit]

I just looked in on "Tahash" a few minutes ago just to see if anyone had made any changes in the article since the activation of the block to edits, and discovered that when I first clicked on the menu listing for "Tahash - Wikipedia", to go directly to the article from InternetExplorer, an older version of Tahash came up (displaying the images in Tahash Gallery of "Dugong" and "Manatee with young" as they were before the minor revising edit was made transposing their positions and changing the picture of manatee with young to the more bluish picture of sea cow with young). Made me wonder if someone had reverted the most recent edits to the article. The edit history did not show any new edit or revision. Then, when I clicked on the "Article" tab at top of the Tahash page, the most recent version came up in place of the one that first came up on the screen (displaying the images in Tahash Gallery of "Sea cow with young" and "Dugong"). Spooky. I went back to the home page and entered "Tahash" in the search window again, clicked, then clicked "Tahash - Wikipedia" on the menu again as before. The same thing happened again. To get the most recent version, I had to click on the "Article" tab at top of the page. (I have been told that the edit history infallibly shows a permanent record of all edit changes, including those made by administrators and stewards, but at this point no further edit has been recorded after my last one at 16:41. —so, "Spooky".) It might be a temporary glitch in the system, but at this point I don't know if it is or not. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Article "Tahash" Completed[edit]

I have made my final contribution to the article Tahash, because I believe it has now been brought to completion in encyclopedic form, with historical accuracy. I do not by any means claim credit for the article; it has been a work of the Wikipedia community. Key points in the history of my own personal involvement since October 2010 have been documented above under "TAHASH ARTICLE REFERENCE INDEX". My closing comments can be read on the article's Discussion page.

This is not, however, the end of my participation in Wikipedia. According to my limited ability and expertise I will from time to time make whatever constructive contributions and edits I can, to help in some small way to maintain and improve Wikipedia. My best wishes to the Stewards and Administrators, and thanks to them for all their hard work. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ark of the Covenant, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem stated by the template did not exist. I gave a valid reason for restoring the text to what it was. Further reasons for inclusion of the material on the Literalist Point of View were given on the Talk Page.
You have not explained how the direct statement of the Literalist reading is a synthesis. Smackbot stated falsely that the footnotes could not be verified. They are present in the articles "Biblical inerrancy" and "Providentissimus Deus" and there is no such statement of "unverified" regarding them there.
The footnotes I have provided show and explain what Biblical Literalism means. Among these footnotes, three literalists are quoted directly. According to the quoted literalists, the ark is in the temple in heaven.
You did not even wait 24 hours for others to read the material. Why does it bother you so much? There was nothing constructive in your reversions. You have reverted a distinct Point of View regarding the location of the ark of the covenant that merits representation along with all the others in the article.
I am going back to revert your vandalism. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I have already given detailed reasoning for my reverts & tagging on Talk:Ark of the Covenant#Sources on 'Heaven' section -- which you have not even attempted to address! Removal of tags without addressing this discussion is disruptive. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I did address them, in edit summary, on the Talk page, and here, above. The Literalist Point of View takes literally every statement in Scripture. The footnotes with links demonstrate that fact. John says "the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple". Principle stated, source given. "If it's in heaven, it's not on earth." I don't need a statement from an official source to know that if you are communicating here at 09:06, 17 April 2011, you are not deep inside a copper mine in Nevada with your hands full of equipment desperately trying to remove the rubble of a cave-in. The Eiffel Tower is in Paris, so it cannot be found anywhere else on earth. These self-evident facts are not Synthesis. And neither is the statement that if the Ark of the covenant is in the Temple in Heaven, it cannot be on earth. That's just ordinary intelligence. The claim that this is a Synthesis is a pretext (and a thin one, at that!) John does not say that the appearance of the likeness of the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple—he says directly the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple". Unless you are prepared to claim that the Literalist Point of View sees Heaven as being right here on earth, there is no way that the Literalist Point of View can be understood to read John's statement as meaning that the ark is anywhere on earth, so there is no way that this is Synthesis.
(i) The issue is not the "Literalist Point of View" generally, but that view as it pertains to the Ark in that specific passage of Revelations -- an issue that none of the sources you cite addresses. (ii) Revelations is mainly a vision of the future, so it is not clear that the Ark cannot be (presently) on Earth and in Heaven (in the future) in the vision. (iii) Even if that weren't true, drawing the implication that the Ark couldn't be on Earth because the vision placed it in heaven from a primary source is still WP:SYNTH lacking a secondary source for the implication. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(The Preterists do not regard the Revelation as pointing to the future. I am one of them.)
The issue is precisely the Literalist Point of View, taking every word literally, and its consequent conclusion when applied to Revelation 11:19; that in principle it automatically places the ark in Heaven, now, because of the "plain meaning" of the words of the Biblical text, and as can be seen from the quotations from treatments of that principle by supporters and detractors, and the quotations by the literalists interpreting John's text, and the observed fact that these people do not say that the ark is now on earth and will be in heaven in the future, and that none of them is interested in looking for the lost ark and think that the whole enterprise is a total tragic waste of time and resources (I've talked to some of them). Their "rumored location" of the ark of the covenant is God's temple in Heaven. But again, theirs is only one point of view. The actual point of the section is the consequence of this Point of View with regard to any conclusions they would have regarding the real location of the ark of the covenant (their "rumored location" is Heaven), and their view of the value of the efforts of those people who are seeking its location on earth. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
All of this appears to be taking (i) the general Literalist Point of View & (ii) a specific religious passage (and an extremely problematical one at that -- given the heavy level of prophecy and symbolic language the book of Revelations includes) & (iii) synthesises from these what literalists would think about this passage. This is precisely what WP:Synthesis forbids. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
"Appearances" are usually deceptive, especially with a preconception of what the article should say, and how to get rid of it if it doesn't fit that. Synthesis is avoided by using the actual representative quotations of literalists together with links to their writing/commentary. We don't have to 'guess' what they would think, we know. The problem at hand seems to me to be the random footnote sequence combining cited sources explaining only generally and essentially what the Literalist interpretation entails together with the three specific quotations from the linked commentaries on The Book of The Revelation 11:19 (the actual title, by the way, not "Revelation[s]). I'll go ahead and revise the positioning of the footnotes into two parcels at the relevant points in the sentence. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I just came back from seeing Scott MacDonald's elegant solution. He's right. Well done. It's a condensed version of the original section "Heaven". This is what real collaboration should be. Looks like we have consensus. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Please cease and desist characterising legitimate content disputes as "vandalism", as you have done here, on WP:ANI and on Talk:Ark of the Covenant‎. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not part of a "legitimate content dispute" to revert verifiable sourced material representing a particular point of view, held by many, that had not been previously represented in the article, and claim the material is "UNSOURCED". The originally provided link to "Biblical literalism" containing additional explanation of the meaning of "a literal reading" also provided access to external sources explaining the application of the principle of literalism to understanding scripture, which the reader could have accessed. You did not remember to Assume Good Faith on my part when, as soon as you saw it, you immediately reverted the material on the Literalist's Point of View (that the ark's possible location today is in heaven because John says it is.) You did not discuss reversion of it on the Talk Page first with a "recommendation" that the brief section be removed, and set forth reasons to remove it, and ask for responses from other editors about it. Your reversions were made within minutes and seconds of my submitting the material to the article. Your edit summaries included ridicule. How can I Assume Good Faith after such a reaction? My own initial response to your first reversion was courteous. I went to work in good faith to provide verifiable sources for the Literalist Point of View, a point of view which had been lacking in the article, yet after they were submitted you responded that NO SOURCES were given. The Literalist Point of View is given in the sources cited. Quotations from literalist writers representing that point of view are provided. Together they demonstrate that a Literalist reading of Revelation 11:19 places the ark's location in Heaven, not on earth. No source I read from the Literalist point of view says that, after John saw the ark of the covenant in the temple in Heaven, God later translated or moved the ark from Heaven to earth where it might possibly be found by treasure seekers and archaeologists. So, according to a literalist reading, the ark is in heaven—the physical ark—and they claim that one day the temple there in heaven will be opened so that all people can see inside of it, and that they will see the ark there, not here—the physical ark—with the stone tablets inside of it (the sources for this were cited, briefly quoted, and linked).
The section Heaven represents one among several points of view. The footnotes provided are verifiable as representing the principle of Biblical Literalism and actual quotations by literalists stating that the actual ark of the covenant containing the stone tablets and the jar of manna and Aaron's rod is in heaven (not on earth) where one day all men will see it there, not here. There is no Synthesis in this. The section is sourced. The sources cited are verified as representing that point of view. The sources quoted state that the ark is in heaven. The issues raised have been addressed.
(and an edit conflict delayed re-submitting this response by about an hour) --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ark of the Covenant. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rami R 09:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


Please stop accusing Hrafn (talk · contribs) of vandalism. Vandalism is a very specific term used to describe deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia, whereas he appears to be acting in good faith. Note that I have no bearing on your dispute at all, but false accusations of vandalism are considered personal attacks and are unacceptable. ╟─TreasuryTagvoice vote─╢ 09:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I seriously and sincerely doubt that immediate reverts within seconds of submitting material, without attempts to verify the sources cited, and to do three of them within 18 hours, is acting in good faith. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you think that it is vandalism then you need to re-read the definition pronto. The warning stands.
Incidentally, Hrafn claims that he's been trying to engage in a talkpage discussion with you but you've refused to enter into that sort of dialogue. Is this true? ╟─TreasuryTagperson of reasonable firmness─╢ 11:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
You raised three points:
  1. I have read the definition of Vandalism several times over the past 7 months—I assure you I know what it says about edits and reversions made without good reasons being given for making them—particularly when the reason given in the edit summary does not correspond or apply to the reality of the actual material or text being reverted: claiming that sourced material is unsourced is a prime example.
  2. Apparently you did not look at the Discussion Page for the article, to verify his claim that I have not responded there, or you would not have asked the question. I did respond, in patient detail, and addressed every point he raised there. When he turned his attention to this talk page, I responded here, as you can read, above. He claims that I have not addressed the issues he raised.
  3. I did not say (immediately above, in answer to your advice to read policy definition) that the reverts were vandalism, I responded to your opinion (that he appears to be acting in Good Faith) by pointing out that in accordance with his actual behaviour, and the reasons for reversion that he stated in his edit summaries, that they are not evidence of Good Faith editing. Please read it again. Read my analysis of his edit summary reasons above. Go to the article "Ark of the Covenant" and view the history of his edits and my responses to them and my comments on the Discussion page. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

< OK, let me take your response once at a time. I assure you I know what it says about edits and reversions made without good reasons being given for making them – edits being made "without good reason" are not automatically vandalism. I can't make this any clearer for you so I shall just have to stop trying. Apparently you did not look at the Discussion Page for the article, to verify his claim that I have not responded there, or you would not have asked the question – yes, well spotted. I gave you an opportunity to respond, which I think was very polite of me. I did not say that the reverts were vandalismdon't lie, it's very foolish. You called them vandalism here You also called them vandalism here
I will not be discussing this further with you. If you don't abide by my warning above, steps will be taken. That's all. ╟─TreasuryTagTellers' wands─╢ 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out that I was responding to the opinion that he was "acting in good faith" by citing actual documentation of behavior that, as it stands, does not demonstrate that he acted in good faith:

"I seriously and sincerely doubt that immediate reverts within seconds of submitting material, without attempts to verify the sources cited, and to do three of them within 18 hours, is acting in good faith."

No where does (this quotation of) my own statement in response to the opinion of "good faith" say "vandalism"—I said that I seriously doubt that he acted in good faith. And anyone who goes to the edit history of the article and reads what was reverted, and the edit summaries of reasons for reversions, will have evidence that he failed to act in "good faith". The impression given is that he just simply did not want to include that point of view along with the others given, and his initial edit summary stated that the material I submitted was "ludicrous" (I don't think readers characterize this as courteous). It is an altogether different thing to simply require secondary and third-party sources, which is what a dissenting editor is expected to do according to WP:COURTESY. Moreover, I have so far only heard from one, and not from the community. And I would like to hear from others if they believe I deserve the admonition about WP:IDHT in regard to this article.
Meanwhile, I have finished gathering notes and quotes from verifiable secondary and third-party sources substantiating the existence of an actual tradition of interpretation that, against the historians' view, claims that the physical Mosaic ark of the covenant was taken to Heaven around 600 B.C. to keep it out of the hands of the Chaldeans (quote), that it remains there in God's temple in heaven to this day (quote), which means that the ark may no longer be on earth (from an actual quote, so it isn't WP:OR), and that if we could look into heaven into God's temple today we would see it there in the temple (quote from the Spurgeon Archive, C. H. Spurgeon, 1887, Thursday Evening, August 18th), and that in the last days it will be seen there in heaven by everyone on earth (quote). This too is a genuinely held rumor of the location today of the ark of the covenant which merits encyclopedic inclusion along with the other rumors of the location of the ark today. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Omar Khayyam[edit]

I just found in the article Omar Khayyam the following observation:

We are the victims of an age when men of science are discredited, and only a few remain who are capable of engaging in scientific research. Our philosophers spend all their time mixing true with false and are interested in nothing but outward show, such little learning they have they extend on material ends. When they see a man sincere and unremitting in his search for the truth, one who will have nothing to do with falsehood and pretence, they mock and despise him.

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You lose[edit]

I have talked to two former Wikipedians and told them my experience of the past few weeks. They assured me that there is no fundamental intellectual, academic, scholastic, or encyclopedic integrity at the heart of Wikipedia, but only a predatory field of opportunity for people who love contentious confrontation without end as a form of entertainment. I had intended to contribute what expertise I have to this "encyclopedia", but have discovered with the articles "Tahash" and "Ark of the Covenant" that well-intentioned contributions backed by rational and solid sources of information are not the primary concern of most of the editors with whom I have interacted, but have only provided a kind of on-going stimulus for bored delinquents. Only very rarely have I had the experience of interacting with an editor of genuine integrity who was serious about producing a good article. Most of the editors I have encountered occupied themselves with demolition of any informational substance they found giving specious reasons for their edits that made little sense. Their purpose was not constructive but only in seeing what kind of reaction they could get. The most recent clue was reversion of an edit containing useful information from Strong's Concordance with the edit summary that it was WP:SPS. That fact joined to previous kinds of edits of a dismantling character only, told me that this site is toxic to a serious researcher, and a mockery of intelligence and the expectation of doing some good by providing reliable information. Fortunately, I have studied mental health disciplines, pastoral care, and anthropology to the extent that I could recognize the nature of this milieu, and decide to simply "walk out of hell." --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye then, I suppose.
You might like to read about the problem with messages like this. Usually, people who post their reasons for leaving are hoping that everyone will come around and beg them to stay. If that sounds very disagreeable to you, then you might consider changing or deleting your message. People will believe that you've left when you have actually stopped editing, not when you say that you will. There are far too many {{Retired}} banners on the accounts of active users for anyone to take such claims on faith. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tahash "complete and historically accurate"[edit]

Left you a note at Talk:Tahash. I hope that if you really believe what you said that you'll accept that challenge. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Outraged where this article is being discussed. Fences&Windows 16:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Please stick to one account. Thank you. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for inappropriate use of multiple accounts with User:Tillie Jean. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

For shame. Sockpuppetry and lying in this way are neither honest nor christian behaviors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; what I've seen at Wikipedia indicates that people who make a big deal about being Christians are way more likely to lie and cheat and call people names than just about any other group of people. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
User:FisherQueen, your previous comment was inappropriate in the context of the professionalism one should uphold on Wikipedia. Making generalizations about groups of people based on their religion, regardless of whether individuals are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., is unwarranted. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Not if the generalization is accurate. Religion-pushing should be punishable on Wikipedia. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Article Tahash Timeline[edit]

Hello Michael Paul Heart! I received a message on my wall from you a while back but have been busy. Would you still like me to add my comments? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png


January 2012

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