User talk:Codex Sinaiticus

People coming here will be looking for a clear explanation of why I have left the project: I WON'T WORK FOR ANY PROJECT THAT REDEFINES THE LIVING RELIGIONS AS "MYTHOLOGICAL", PRETENDS THAT IS "NEUTRAL", AND ENFORCES THIS "NEUTRALITY" THROUGH THE USE OF BLOCKS TO PUNISH THOSE WHO DISSENT. THIS IS PURELY FASCISTIC BEHAVIOUR, AND I WILL BE STRICKING UNTIL A CLEAR POLICY THAT DISTINGUISHES LIVING RELIGIONS FROM "MYTHOLOGY" IS ADDRESSED!

---

Correct and True Etymology of the English words "Myth, Mythology"

Greek μυθολογια "legend, storytelling" is derived from μυθος "speech, thought, story, myth", itself of unknown origin. English mythology is in use since the 15th century, in the meaning "an exposition of myths". The current meaning of "body of myths" itself dates to 1781 (OED). The adjective mythical dates to 1678; English use of myth is later, first attested in 1830, in its original English meaning of "untrue story":

"These two stories are very good illustrations of the origin of myths, by means of which, even the most natural sentiment is traced to its cause in the circumstances of fabulous history." Westminster Review 12:44 (1830)

This is the earliest known usage of "myth" in English. In case anyone didn't know, in 1830 English "fabulous" doesn't mean "wonderfully aesthetic", it is the adjectival form of "fable", that is referring to a fantasy or fairytale. In 1830 the term "myth" was new, so it carries what we call a gloss, things "by means of which even the most natural sentiment is traced to its cause in the circumstances of fabulous (i.e., fictional) history.". This was not only the original use of the word, but the original academic use of the word, note the source, Westminster Review. That is still the way most all people define "myth" today. It's for reasons like this, that Wikipedia is so notorious for its mental disconnect with mainstream thought, and its enforced use of its own internal terminology / jargon, or to put it less nicely, doublespeak.

In 2005, a single-purpose account added "mythology categories" to a wide range of articles including Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Virgin Birth, Sermon on the Mount, Transubstantiation, and many others, creating a huge uproar. The outcome of the discussions then was overwhelmingly to reject the categories as inflammatory, non-neutral, and inappropriate. It was agreed at that time that theological and scriptural articles do not fall into the category of "mythology" and today, none of these articles are so categorised, apart from Noah's Ark.

Just last month, WP:RELIGION undertook to move the article "Yoruba mythology" to Yoruba religion. This is because the term "mythology" is held to be demeaning, because Yoruba religion is still practised today, and the Yoruba who practice it constitute a significant viewpoint. I agree fully with this decision, but it is indeed regrettable that so much resistance is facing the prospect of extending the same consideration to the canonical Book of Genesis. The Churches have drawn the line to indicate their viewpoint, by indicating which particular books they consider canonical, inspired texts. Genesis is among them with no exceptions as far as I know. What gives Wikipedia the right to draw the line so as to exclude other Biblical Books from "mythology", but include the stories of Genesis? No books that are considered sacred scripture by ANY large religion of today should be portrayed as "mythology". That's simple common sense. We shouldn't call things in the Quran or Book of Mormon or Guru Granth Sahib "mythology" either, we shouldn't call anyone's sacred books widely adhered to today "mythology".

Now things like Hesiod and Orpheus are another story, I think the reason Hesiod and Orpheus have conventionally been referred to as "mythology" for some time is because no significant numbers of people have ever come forward claiming to believe these books to be historical or literally true since the year 400. At least I will go out on a limb and say I don't know of any, not a single one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's pretty safe to say they have been discarded, and nobody objects to the conventional use of "mythology" for these. But please realize that this is not the case with Christian, Muslim or Bahai writings, nor indeed the writings of many other living religions.

Sovereign governments with official religious doctrines in the world. Let's be neutral.

THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 MILLION BAHAIS IN THE WORLD ALONE, WHO REVERE NOAH AS A PROPHET, THAT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO QUALIFY FOR A "SIGNIFICANT VIEWPOINT" BUT WIKIPEDIA CONSIDERS IT "NEUTRAL" TO TELL THEM THEIR BELIEFS ARE NOW MYTHOLOGY, TO THE POINT OF EVEN BLOCKING THOSE WHO DISSENT. THERE ARE 1.4 BILLION MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD WHO ALSO REVERE NOAH AS A PROPHET, ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT VIEWPOINT. I HAVEN'T EVEN ATTEMPTED TO COUNT THE NUMBERS OF CHRISTIANS OR JEWS WHO HAVE THIS VIEWPOINT YET. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Couple of notes. First, "fascistic behaviour" though semantically correct would be better written as, "This is pure fascism." It's hard to describe a behaviour as being fascistic. And I believe you are "striking" not "stricking." The latter is not a word. By the way, violating WP:3RR is hardly punishing dissent. Anyways, you really ought to calm down. Orangemarlin 22:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be one thing if it were True that the reason I was blocked had been 3RR, Orangemarlin. But the record shows that the reason given for my block was for the "disruption" of "adding a dispute tag to a featured article" (Noah's Ark). Pico had re-written my recently-added research about the Sabians in such a way that it was incorrect and betrayed gross ignorance, actually combining the Sabians in with Bahai Faith when these have almost nothing in common. I reverted to the correct version 3 times, kept getting reverted back to the wrong version, so at that point I left a detailed explanation of why this was factually inaccurate on the talkpage, and indicated that I was disputing the factual accuracy VIA a factual dispute tag. I followed proper procedure, but was blocked anyway with no response to my talkpage discussion -- it was just "block first, discuss later (or never)". The pretext being given by the blocking admin, was that I had been so bold as to "dispute" an article that had once received FA status. This implies that anyone may add all kinds of incorrect information to an FA, but if anyone challenges this incorrect information they may be blocked. Where is there any policy like that? But the REAL truth is, both you know and I know that they were looking hard for any pretext to block me they could possibly find, because the true purpose of the block is to declare the Bible to be "mythological", and they will block anyone who opposes them. They may be able to convince most of the people some of the time, that this behaviour is "neutral" but they know they will NEVER convince me, so their "final solution" is to get rid of me, THEN declare the Bible to be "mythology". My strick continues. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mandaeans Abrahamic?

Time is on my side. Sooner or later, Wikipedia is going to have to reconcile itself with the reality that the Sabian religions are not "Abrahamic", and consider Abraham to be a false prophet; and that Bahá'í Faith is fully Abrahamic and not lumped together with the Sabians; and that there is no such classification known to man as "quasi-Abrahamic", let alone a generally accepted one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Breaking News!

GENUINE WIKIPEDIA COIN: "Quasi-Abrahamic"

Wikipedia, the online Encyclopedia anyone may edit, has coined a new, previously unheard-of classification: "Quasi-Abrahamic"! Thus proving its remarkable innovative, original ability yet again to make stunning research breakthroughs for the betterment of mankind. The new usage and definition of this term is in application to what were previously known as the "Sabian religions", plus Bahai Faith. A Wikipedia spokesman said he had already been in contact with Websters about the new entry in next years Collegiate Dictionary. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Elaborating further, the spokesman stated: "You see, we couldn't exactly just call them 'Abrahamic', innit? I mean the Sabians say they don't even believe in Abraham, so that's no good. And as for the Bahai's - well, it was determined that they are indeed from a country that starts with I. So that's probably close enough then. Anyway, who cares?" ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An example of this innovative usage of the brand-new classification "quasi-Abrahamic" may now be seen at the article Noah's Ark!

---

Old Stuff

I don't subscribe to the "Documentary hypothesis"...!

In my own research, I have compiled a vast list of evidence that Jubilees is a far more archaic version than Genesis and the Torah. I can't exactly make this into an OR article-essay, but I will briefly mention here on my talk page, one of the strongest cases:

Take a look at Numbers 13:22. Abruptly inserted into a text about Moses' spies sent into Canaan, we find this parenthetical comment: "(Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt.)"

This little fact isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Torah. What could be the source? It doesn't fit in chronologically here at all. It's only mentioned one other place that I know: Jubilees 13:12, where it fits in much more smoothly with the narrative, where one would logically expect to find it, i.e. right after he relates about Abram going to Hebron when it was built.

Now, make an honest evaluation: Obviously, by the time Numbers and the Torah were compiled, the Hebrews already knew Hebron with the distinctive epithet "that was built seven years before Tanis in Egypt", so much that this became practically part of the title of the city. This would mean that because of this tradition, they could hardly even mention the name of "Hebron" without adding "that was built 7 years before Tanis...", and that is the likeliest way to explain why the redactor of Numbers would put it in 13:22, quite out of context.

But there must have been a source for this little piece of lore, one that would have presumably had it within the actual Abraham narrative — i.e., right where Jubilees has it. It's remotely possible that some Maccabean-era forger could have known all this, and sewn it into precisely the right spot, but I seriously doubt this. Jubilees looks much more like the source we would expect, that scholars have been guessing at all this time, a real attested source, than any hypothetical "J / E / P" source that can be reconstructed. It must be remembered that these hypothetical sources have never been archaeologically or otherwise attested, and are only reconstructions according to this theory. Also, the Maccabean "evidence" for Jubilees' date is totally flimsy and unconvincing, and is really only a rehash of religiously-motivated allegations first made at Yavneh in 80 AD, when it was excised from the Masoretic canon. Jubilees was held in high regard with the other books at Qumran. It was held in high regard by the Jews until Yavneh. It continued to be held in high regard by the Christian Church Fathers, until Nicea. Modern scholars should now make an honest reassessment of whether Numbers 13:22 isn't really based on Jubilees 13:12 as an *older* source, and like I said, that's only the first thing on my list, the tip of the iceberg. -- Codex Sinaiticus, 15:01, 5 January 2006

I ask you a question, not meaningto be argumentative: does your theory rest on this sentence alone? The Jubilees was used at Qmran itdicates that it was produced with a special tendency, but acceptable enough that it remainedwithin the orthodox canon. I write as an admitted amateur. DGG 08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently scholars have largely discredited the DH theory - see link[[1]] So the question is; why is it still taught by academics? I haven't checked the DH article yet. How about you? ^rossnixon 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an unsourced web posting. "Scholars have largely...] implies you have some scholarly evidence of this. Perhaps you will find that the original arguement, like most broad hyptheses, has been supplemented, not supplanted, by anumber of additional considerations. I write as an admitted amateur. DGG 08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Myth Disclaimer

IMPORTANT NOTICE: While most English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" by the dictionary definition of "fictitious" or "imaginary", these terms, as used on wikipedia, have been agreed by consensus to have a different meaning, that does not imply this. Therefore, for wikipedia purposes, a story that is 100% factual may be described as a "myth".

Either we rename "Christian mythology" and similar categories to "Christian legends", or explanatory templates like the above should be applied to many, many pages... Codex Sinaiticus 18:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the encouraging compliment. I'm sorry about the trial of conscience that this debate produces. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Again from outside, what's wrong with christian legends? Legend is a fairly neutral word, and can be seen in such terms as the Goldenledend--the stories about the christian saintsDGG 08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wesley

John Wesley said, "You have nothing to do but save souls...". Yes, it's Christ alone who saves, but Wesleyans feel that we have to be about sharing in Christ's work. I'm just saying that Christians can dispute and argue so much (with non-Christians and with one another) that we lose focus. Hope that helps...I certainly meant no offense and apologize if I offended! KHM03 15:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Negus negust vs. Niguse negest

Hi, Codex Sinaiticus! Due to our interests I guess it was inevitable that our paths would eventually cross.

The principal reason -- actually, the only reason -- that I changed the transliteration of this Amharic phrase to Negus negust is to be consistent with how I have spelled it in about 80 different articles. In short, every article I have written about an Emperor of Ethiopia (from Yekuno Amlak to Haile Selassie) I have spelled it that way, for the sole reason that it seemed to me the simplest & most consistent way to render it in the Latin alphabet. And no, I do not know any Amharic.

So if you'd like to spend an hour or two changing every time Negus negust appears in those articles to Niguse negest, go ahead -- but warn me first so I don't accidentally assume that these articles are being targeted by a vandal. My principal concern is that Wikipedia be consistent, although as close to accurate as possible. -- llywrch 00:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will gradually make the change in all the articles, since "Niguse Negest" is accurate, but "Negus negust" is neither accurate nor consistent, since it renders two different vowels as u and as e, and renders the vowel e as both e and u...! Codex Sinaiticus 02:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Epistle of Jude

You may have already seen, but another user reverted your edits to Epistle of Jude. Just thought you should know. freestylefrappe 21:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Shepherd of Hermas

Hi. I'd appreciate it if we could borrow your expertise in the article, Binitarianism. See the Talk to catch up on the issues that are being discussed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Christian Mythology Category

I've warned the anon for violating 3rr; if he does it again he will be blocked. In the meantime, do you have any links to the discussion of what is covered by this category? I'm looking myself and I just want to make sure that I've seen all the evidence so that I don't do anything silly.--Scimitar ^parley 17:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

he said see the category talk pages, and since he claims that category:Jesus is the replacement, looked on that talk page... and saw nothing..... 134.161.138.166 17:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I'll take a look. Seems like it should be a lot of fun.--Scimitar ^parley 17:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, it looks like your interpretation is correct, Codex. I sort of suspected it from the beginning, but I'm trying not to jump to conclusions. Thanks for your patience.--Scimitar ^parley 18:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, thanks for not violating 3rr; it makes my life much easier.--Scimitar ^parley 18:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Um... why do we HAVE a christian mythology tag is religious nuts can prevent us from using it correctly? (unsigned comment by User:134.161.138.166)

Magog

See Talk:Gog and Magog AnonMoos 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Saul and Easton's

Hi, thanks for your corrections and clarifications to my rewrite of the Saul article. I wonder if you might be interested in working with me on weeding out the articles based on Easton's Bible Dictionary. I think it is a travesty and an embarrassment to wikipedia that so many articles are based on it, and I think there needs to be some sort of organized effort to rewrite all articles based on it. This is especially true of articles on people not largely known through the Bible - for instance, various Babylonian kings, and the like. But it's true of the Biblical articles, too. Easton's Bible Dictionary simply isn't an encyclopedic source. It much, much worse than the turn of the century encyclopedias that have been used to write articles, for instance. Anyway, if you're interested in this, or know anyone else who might be, I think this would be a highly worthwhile venture. And not even necessarily that difficult - my rewrite of the Saul article took only a few minutes. john k 23:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Afar stats

It's okay now. There really are 6 articles. The counter on the main page was broken; I've fixed it now. I was using a counter on my user page, which has always functioned; I never looked at the main page and didn't realize that it wasn't formatted. Thanks for letting me know. David Cannon 23:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't answer that one, except that I know that MANY wikpipedia projects have a discrepancy between the article counter and the ALL PAGES link. Whether the problem is with the counter, or with the updating of the ALL PAGES link, I have no idea. That's something you'd have to ask a Developer about. I'm not a Developer; I know User:Angela is, and there are some others. David Cannon 00:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By all means, please do ask Angela to look into it.

I'm ready to recalculate the figures; I actually have a spreadsheet that automates it. I'll do that if it turns out that there really are no articles on Afar. I'll wait till you've heard from Angela, though. David Cannon 00:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know the cause of it, and I'd rather not speculate about it. I suggest you report it as a bug at bugzilla.wikimedia.org if it isn't already there. Angela. 00:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.

NPOV is a lonely job. Thanks for defending it. Ungtss 20:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Thanks for your help on the BCE/CE pages. Chooserr

Neolithic Europe also has had the BCE/CE reverted...could you help? Chooserr

Ogham

I am quite fascinated with the topic myself (plus, no pov warriors! Wiki heaven, after I've been driven off from Odin, unfortunately obscure or scholarly topic are no guarantee that they will not be patrolled by the grumpy and insane:) I'm looking for references for Bríatharogam now, but google is silent, and I'll have to wait to get to the library tomorrow. dab (ᛏ) 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I see! I was wondering about this, but otherwise I've never even heard of the guy. Obviously a kook, I'd say, but by all means mention him! dab (ᛏ) 19:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

input request

Would you mind looking in on Talk:Jesus H. Christ#"Bored church attendees"? Thanks for your time. Tomer^talk 00:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

alphabets

Hi Codex,

I've reverted a couple edits you've made to history of the alphabet, etc, so I thought I should explain myself. For this last edit, you gave manyougana as an example of a modern alphabet that's not used nationally, but as you point out, it's neither modern nor an alphabet, and when it was used it was used nationally, so it doesn't belong. The shorthand speculation I removed as being just that. In the admittedly sparse accounts I have about the history of shorthand, More's name is not mentioned, and in any case it's not clear that shorthand systems of that age are graphically ancestral to modern shorthand or Cree. If you have a reference, it would be interesting to see. kwami 06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied on my page. More's system was not shorthand, & d n appear t b related t Willis o Pitman. Cree akshara appear t b fm Devanagari, & final C's fm Pitman. kwami 18:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mythology

I've made a lengthy suggestion at Talk:Mythology#Etymology and usage — some analysis and a suggestion. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. JHCC (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you for this edit, it made me happy. Sam Spade 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mythology

I've put a suggestion at Talk:Mythology#A_suggestion on which I would appreciate your input. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex I don't think your arguments are irrelvant. It is in fact one of the more interesting talk pages i have come across as this is a very good discussion. Just out of interest do you know why the OED switched the primary definition after the other dictionarys? Or were the other dictionaries always using the academic definition as the primary meaning? David D. (Talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: taxis

I just don't recall seeing a taxi with twelve seats. I remember the two front seats (one for the driver), then one or two rows each with two seats, then a back row with three or four seats. Which makes 9 or 10 seats. Of course, someone might try and fit 12 or more people among those seats (though if we saw this happening we usually waited for another taxi). I'm just not sure about the statement that they "can sit at least twelve people," sort of like the old joke about how a Volkswagen can hold 10 people... if they are college students or circus clowns, maybe. ;-) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Now in Nazret/Adama, some of the blue & whites were small pickup trucks with a passenger compartment in the pickup bed. The seating was like you described. But I don't remember seeing these in Addis (maybe because we usually stuck to a few routes). And in Modjo [sp.?] I think the only taxis were garis. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah there are the ones known as 'talkers', the pickup trucks, because you can talk to the other person across from you. Many of the normal taxi I'm have 4 rows of seats plus the front seat so that its twelve seats, at least. Those can probably fit at least fifteen.

notes on the History of Mythology

• The article Mythology was created by Cayzle on 14 Dec, 2001. In its original incarnation, it read:

the connotation of the words "myth" and "mythology" is that the stories are false, or dubious at best.

• 28 Dec 2001 - 18 Sep 2002: Incarnation I (Cayzle / Slrubenstein) excerpt:

Some use the words "myth" and "mythology" to identify stories as false, or dubious at best. Others use the words to refer to stories that, while usually not strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archtypes.

• 18 Sep 2002 - 11 Apr 2004 Incarnation II (major rewrite by TUF-KAT) Still a fairly neutral article that covers all pov's. excerpt:

People within most religions take offense at the characterization of their faith as a myth, for this is tantamount to claiming that the religion itself is a lie.

• (slightly modified 12 Jun 2003 by anon IP)

• 11 Apr 2004 - Incarnation III (major rewrite by Wetman) replaces meaningful definition of myth.. End of npov language.. Excerpt:

Some people, especially within "revealed" religions that are justified in terms of an authenticated scripture, may take offense at the characterization of any aspect of their faith as an expression of myth. An aspect of fundamentalism requires that every incidental element be accepted as literally true.

TO BE CONTINUED... (checked revision history up to June '04 so far)

Powhatan

Hello Codex Sinaiticus, as far as I can tell from my sources, Powhatan translates as 'by the (water)falls' in Algonquian languages (which includes the language spoken by Wahunsonacock), and not as 'Emperor'. You may be confusing it with Mamanatowick, which is variously given as 'Paramount Chief', 'Great Chief', and 'Emperor'. The reason I haven't put Mamanatowick in as Wahunsonacock's title is that I have not found a good (or even bad) contemporary source for that particular appelation. I am still looking.

Given that Wahusonacock called himself Powhatan, and Powhatan was a place name of a settlement by the falls of the James River, it doesn't make sense to translate it as 'Emperor'. It is not unheard of for people of rank to refer to themselves by place-names. The English peerage does it - as well recorded by Shakespeare - so John Doe, Duke of Northumberland, is usually refered to as 'Northumberland' in text written about him, and in relatively formal conversations between peers, they will address each other by the place they are peer of.

I currently do not have access to Strachey's word list, so I don't know if Powhatan appears in it. It doesn't appear in John Smith's smaller collection, as far as I remember.

Charles Dudley Warner's writings are interesting, especially this passage:

"In 1618 died the great Powhatan, full of years and satiated with fighting and the savage delights of life. He had many names and titles; his own people sometimes called him Ottaniack, sometimes Mamauatonick, and usually in his presence Wahunsenasawk."

but I don't know where he got his information from.

To summarise: as far as I can tell we have Wahunsonacock, who was chief/king (weroance) of his own people, and paramount chief/emperor (mamanatowick) of the 30 or so affialiated, conquered, and vassal peoples in his neighbourhood. He called himself Powhatan, which is also a place name. I'm not trying to remove the title 'Emperor', rather remove mistranslations. If you can help clarify, I'd be grateful.

On another point, he ruled over between 9-14,000 people in tidewater Virginia (have you got any further in qualifying that number?). By contrast/comparison, the population of England at the time was very approximately 5 million people. I think London's population was between 100,000 and 200,000.

Regards,

WLD 13:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ge'ez_alphabet#Amharic

hey Codex, maybe you can help me figure out the phonetic values of these modified letters, especially ሸ vs ሰ, ቐ and ኸ vs ቀ and ከ, and most of all ዸ (could it be [ɗ], implosive??) dab (ᛏ) 14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• ሸ is the same sound as "sh" in English, so s-scaron

• ሰ (unmodified) is s

• ቐ - not used in Amharic, possibly Tigrinya

• ኸ - has coalesced with other "h" sounds, all like English h, but this is the only character that can be used for the ä vowel sound in modern Amharic

• ቀ (unmodified) is q (sound not in English, but as in Hebrew)
• ከ (unmodified) regular k, as in English

• ዸ - don't know, not used in Amharic but possibly Tigrinya, looks too much like the sign for P'...

Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm really curious about the value of ሰ in Ge'ez (as opposed to Amharic), but I'll have to dig into the literature... The value for ዸ I took from [2], but that's not a very good source. I am not very familiar with Old Irish phonetics, and you may get a better reply on WP:RD/L, but if not, I'll try to piece it together. regards, dab (ᛏ) 15:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Giiz isa very difficult language to learn, I don't know everything but I do know enough about Giiz to say that ሰ corresponds to samekh (English s) while ሠ corresponds to shin (English sh)... Nowadays in Amharic, both these letters have the same sound (s) and are interchangeable, while ሸ is substituted for sh... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy

Hello, this is just a courtesy note. I am currently gathering information for an RfC to debate whether or not DreamGuy's recent behavior may have been uncivil. Would you be interested in participating? If not, I understand, but I wanted to make you aware. Thanks, Elonka 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopian birr

I noticed your comment on Talk:Ethiopian birr and I was hoping you might be able to help me with some information about the early Ethiopian currency. I've been working on succession boxes for currencies. I have a couple of sources I use, which don't seem to agree on what the currency was called from the introduction to 1936. The Ethiopian birr page calls it birr. The Standard Catalog of World Coins agrees. http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/banknotes/ethiopia/EthiopiaP6-2Thalers-1933_f.jpg shows an example which calls it thaler in what appears to me to be French, but I can't read the Ethiopian script. Other sources call it a talari (which I'm guessing might be Italian for thaler). I created Ethiopian talari, and either need to delete it or update the text at Ethiopian birr. Can you read what the note says? Or do you have any knowledge of the currency? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Ingrid 02:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Ingrid 04:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to the article explaining the reasoning for splitting Abyssinia and Ethiopia even though there was no political change. The currency did change from being issued by the Bank of Abyssinia to the Bank of Ethiopia, which was presumably the same bank under a different name. If you think it needs more, please let me know (or feel free to fix it, of course). Ingrid 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Help on Turkic peoples

Hi Codex Sinaiticus,

Some Turkish editor is removing entire sections on the Turkic peoples without giving a full explanation. Please help. He has already reverted 4 times. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Arsacids

Greetings, I was wondering if you could help me jumpstart this article: Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia aka Arshakuni Dynasty, the junior Armenian branch of the Arsacid Dynasty. I'm asking you because of your impressive edit history in related subjects. I'm currently involved in a nasty dispute regarding the intro for Nagorno Karabakh. Any suggestions or help would be much appreciated.--Eupator 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Hey, Codex. I saw you recently make an edit on the Nagorno Karabakh page, and I was glad that you contributed. If you have any further ideas, your input on the talk page will be appreciated. I remember when I first started editting months ago, you were the first one to help me with some rules and technical stuff, so thank you.

There is a voting going on on the Armenian Genocide Talk page. It's about whether to remove the POV tag from the article. The article is quite neutral, maybe too much, and to my opinion the tag should be removed. But since you are a neutral person, your vote would be especially appreciated. If you want, you can take a look at the article and decide for yourself. Thank you in advance.--TigranTheGreat 10:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting discussion

Codex, I'm wondering if I might ask you to be a little bit less liberal in blanking discussion. I realise the anon is putting themself up on a pedistal, but I think discussing this is more healthy than zapping it. Some of the edits were simple vandalism or mockery, and should've been zapped, but being a bit more conservative on deletions is more in tune with respecting discussion. Don't feel an obligation to respond to everything they say. --Improv 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I usually don't blank discussion under any circumstances, but in this case I didn't see any redeeming merit in any of the comments from this anon who 1) pasted photographs of genitalia into the text 2) is surely the same anon troll who just got blocked for repeatedly making the same racist edits, and who vandalised my homepage... If you really think any of that diatribe needs to be restored, go ahead... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Work Yourself

Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate your work as well. Unfortunately my Amharic isn't as good as it was when I was a little kid, so I don't think I can properly contribute to the Amharic wikipedia. Be sure that I will add what I can on the English one, though. Yom 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

POV on God entry

Thank you for pointing out as such; I'm admittedly late to the conversation, and was hesitant to make the reversion. There are too many people who want to push their own lack of religion on those of us who are Christian or otherwise spiritually inclined. Mhking 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone else beat me to the punch. I guess I'll just have to remain vigilant. Mhking 22:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Test of possible new signature Ш

Kingdom of Axum

The theory that Axum was an indigenous empire (as well as it's predecessor D'mt) is not that new. It's only "new" in relation to the older theory that it was founded by Sabaean immigrants, a thesis that is no longer accepted by many prominent Ethiopian historians. Firstly, the former theory was introduced by Conti Rossini, according to foremost Ethiopian historian Richard Pankhurst, "based on largely conjecture." Moreover, the finding of Ge'ez Graffitti and inscriptions just as old as the Sabaean one greatly undermines the former theory and even the current belief that Ge'ez script (if not language) is derived from South Arabian. Moreover, work by Jacqueline Pirenne showed that Sabaean immigrants were in Ethiopia for just a few decades. Not to mention that the kingdom of D'mt was already established by the time of this South Arabian migration.

http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm (by Richard Pankhurst)

Dr. Stuart Munro-Hay, a foremost scholar on Axumite history, also is doubtful of the Sabaean colonization hypothesis and presents sound evidence undermining it.

This period is not of major concern to us here, and in any case we have very little information about it; but some consideration should be given to the situation in Ethiopia before the rise of Aksum, since the source of at least some of the characteristics of the later Aksumite civilisation can be traced to this earlier period. Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon in this respect is that by around the middle of the first millenium BC — a date cautiously suggested, using palaeographical information (Pirenne 1956; Drewes 1962: 91), but possibly rather too late in view of new discoveries in the Yemen (Fattovich 1989: 16-17) which may even push it back to the eighth century BC — some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia. This developed to such an extent that in not a few places in Ethiopia the remains of certain mainly religious or funerary installations, some of major importance, with an unmistakeable South Arabian appearance in many details, have been excavated. Among the sites are Hawelti-Melazo, near Aksum (de Contenson 1961ii), the famous temple and other buildings and tombs at Yeha (Anfray 1973ii), the early levels at Matara (Anfray 1967), and the sites at Seglamien (Ricci and Fattovich 1984-6), Addi Galamo, Feqya, Addi Grameten and Kaskase, to name only the better-known ones. Fattovich (1989: 4-5) comments on many of these and has been able to attribute some ninety sites altogether to the pre-Aksumite period.

Evidently the arrival of Sabaean influences does not represent the beginning of Ethiopian civilisation. For a long time different peoples had been interacting through population movements, warfare, trade and intermarriage in the Ethiopian region, resulting in a predominance of peoples speaking languages of the Afro-Asiatic family. The main branches represented were the Cushitic and the Semitic. Semiticized Agaw peoples are thought to have migrated from south-eastern Eritrea possibly as early as 2000BC, bringing their `proto-Ethiopic' language, ancestor of Ge`ez and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages, with them; and these and other groups had already developed specific cultural and linguistic identities by the time any Sabaean influences arrived.

From Aksum, a Civilization of Late Antiquity

Yom 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to rush you, but do you intend on answering my comments on Talk:Kingdom of Aksum?

Yom 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

1948 or 1946

I would be interested to know how 1948 A.M. is arrived at for Abraham's birth. Because the book I have that adds up all the ages found in the different versions says 1946, and it's using the same figures from the MT to get that number. I'm just wondering what might be causing that 2-year discrepancy. I can reproduce the whole calculation adding up to 1946 if you like. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is explicitly stated in the Midrash. Also if you add up the years in Genesis 5:3–5:28, factor in 7:11, and then count the years in 11:10-11:26, you get 1948 years. Of course, that very last link is weak unless you believe that Avram, Nahor, and Haran were triplets, but as Avram is mentioned first, it is likely the 70 years applies to his birth. Furthermore, the midrash has the exodus occurring 2448 after creation. Factoring in the tradition that this was 400 years after Isaac was born , that would make Isaac's birth in 2048. Abraham was 100 years old at Isaac's birth, which would make him born in 1948. I would have to search for an explicit midrashic reference, but this tradition is millenia old. -- Avi 22:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that still leaves me curious as to how the 2 year discrepancy came about, so let's see if we can figure this out. Here is the calculation in my book (The Interpreter's Bible, old Edition, Vol. I, p.143): (Numbers refer to the "age at giving birth" given in the Masoretic Text, of course the older versions have different figures, as I mentioned):

   Adam - 130
   Seth - 105
   Enosh - 90
   Kenan - 70
   Mahalalel - 65
   Jared - 162
   Enoch - 65
   Methuselah - 187
   Lamech - 182
   Noah - 500
   Shem - 100
       (Flood is AM 1656 according to this calculation)
   Arpachshad - 35
   Shelah - 30
   Eber - 34
   Peleg - 30
   Reu - 32
   Serug - 30
   Nahor - 29
   Terah - 70

All these figures added together=1,946 AM when Terah gave birth to Abraham. Where are your figures different? Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discrepancy: Genesis 11:10, Arpachshad was born two years AFTER the flood. -- Avi 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

I have noticed your interest in this article. I would like to encourage you to cast a vote for the alternative names that are currently being proposed. Thanks for your help on this matter --T-rex 04:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3RR violations of the anon at Sermon on the Mount

I've blocked him again for 24 hours, which is the maximum allowed by the policy at WP:3RR. Let me know if the borderline personal attacks and/or revert pattern continues - there are avenues we can pursue for further action if the need arises. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Make sure that you are very careful not to break the 3RR rule on that article yourself - in my view neither side's edits are purely "vandalism" as this is more of a content dispute. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again, this time for 72 hours. If he comes back and does the same stuff, you may want to consider an RfC for user conduct. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Eurasian Avars

I would like to know your opinion about this. P.S. I asked more knowledgable editors than myself to comment on Lima's edits on Original sin. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not arguing, just wondering

about this edit of yours. Among all the blather about comic books, "fictional universes", and so forth, I see only one shipping line. So why mention Marcus Garvey, let alone link to him and Africa? I'd thought that minimal descriptions were the way to make a disambig page as small an obstacle as possible on the way to the desired page, but maybe I misunderstood. -- Hoary 15:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Fair enough. -- Hoary 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

I can't believe this guy I have been fighting with at Adam and Eve over inadequately cited material actually had me blocked for 12 hrs. for a 3RR I didn't do. If you take a look, I did not do a 3RR, of course I know better than that, that's why I have never been blocked before in almost a year.

What I did was put a tag asking for a cite 3 times. When he kept reverting, I then removed the uncited sentence completely the fourth time. That's hardly a revert.

Please look into it so I can get back to editing!

Thanks! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Codex Sinaiticus, I looked into your edits refering to the article Adam and Eve. Indeed you were rightfully blocked. You reverted 5 times on the article in under 24 hours. I would just wait out the duration of your block. It was not a revert of vandalism but a content dispute. You're only excuse to reverting an article beyond 4 times would be in the case of blatent vandalism; which it was not. IMHO, I suggest contacting an administrator for assistance with a situation like that. Moe ε 21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note, the last two reverts I made today were totally unrelated to the 3 reverts yesterday... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit-conflicted with Moe once, Codex once...]

I understand your frustration, but I don't necessarily think the block was in error. From the 3RR page: Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part... and I would hold that your fourth edit, while not a revert in the technical sense, still had the same effect as slapping a {{fact}} on there. However, I know others' opinions may differ, so I'll leave the {{unblock}} at the top here and see what others have to say. A block isn't the end of the world. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to respond to Codex's last comment, it doesn't matter if you reverted for another reason than the day before. It's based on the revert itself and the amount of reverting. Moe ε 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, to be even-handed, please count the number of reverts he made in that same time frame, because he reverted more than one other editor, to exactly the same version he didn't want changed... And then he goes and reports me! My reverts were not even the same edit! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked you. Having spent a fair time trawling through the diffs I am now insufficiently sure this was justified that I'm going to unblock you. My apologies. *However* be aware that if you skate this close to 3RR accidents like this are going to happen William M. Connolley 22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you've been unblocked, I've removed the unblock tag. However, I just want to clarify that you can be blocked for making different reverts: someone adds a sentence to the third paragraph and you delete it; someone else changes a word in the fifth paragraph and you change it back; someone moves a paragraph to a different place within the article, and you move it back; and then, finally, someone deletes a sentence in the last paragraph, and you put it back in — in such a case, you have made four reverts, since it's the act of reverting that counts. Obviously reverting of vandalims wouldn't count. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

No worries, saw it while monitoring Recent Changes. I've got the WP:AN/3RR up right now in a tab in case it happens again, and im thinking about asking for a new/anon user lock on the page -M^ask 18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New addition to Enoch 1

Hi Codex how's it going, how about something like this in the intro content section?

A number of Christian theories that take different meanings of particular sections or the book as a whole can be found at [3] and [4]. Some of the information such as comparisons with other books is very interesting and useful. They are written based on a particular point of view and don't appear to have been taken up in any serious research. It has been said that early Christians used this book to convert Jews to Christ however this has not been cited from any relevant research.

The reason I'm trying to add it was I'm a little concerned that it would appear that were totally ignoring other views on the books interpretation. If we add something like this it shows that different interpretations exist, sends them out to relevant pages if they wish and shows were aware that it may vary? If you think I should just add the links I will but I felt that it deserves a more prominent position due to its importance to the subject as a whole? Best Regards -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes your quite right Ill try and stop that annoying habit. As I said the majority is based on Schoddes view which continues over into Charles. Hope that clears it up as I said just trying to expand what's their and make it easily understandable. Regards -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bachman

Can we do something about this bachman fellow? He is being a little annoying on his revert wars on rajput page also.

-DPSingh 12:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy (again)

The final round of voting is in progress. Your opinion would be welcome. --T-rex 19:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Beware :)

Holy cow, we actually agree on something: "I have seen only specious reasoning on the talk page, but no valid reasons. The man did not speak Greek. Be reasonable" •Jim62sch• 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Noah

thanks for looking at my concerns with the documentary hypothesis passage and producing something better. --Drmaik 21:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Impersonators

Hi, thought you'd like to know I just blocked User:Codec Sinaiticus and User:Codex Siniaticus as impersonators of you - both accounts had copy and pasted your userpage onto theirs. I guess you have a fan :) Flowerparty■ 11:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Aboriginal languages in Canada

Hi. I'm wondering why you reverted my changes to "Native languages" in the Aboriginal peoples in Canada article. It was originally "Aboriginal languages" when I moved it from the Canada article. Then an anonymous editor changed aboriginal to "native" back in February, see [5]]. That editor also made similar changes in other articles. Aboriginal is the accepted term in Canada for indigenous peoples, enshrined in the Canadian constitution and accepted by aboriginal peoples themselves, see for example Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. I am curious why you reverted and I am not interested in engaging in an edit war, hence this note. I was about to add more information on aboriginal languages, but I don't want to do that until this issue is resolved. Luigizanasi 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your comments on my talk page, I live in the Yukon and know dozens if not hundreds of First Nations people, some of whom are my close friends. In my professional life, I have done work for most Yukon First Nations governments, and used the term "Aboriginal" in many reports that I prepared for them. This is the first time I have ever heard that Canadian Aboriginal peoples object to the term "Aboriginal" (I realize it's a completely different situation in Australia). I have personally heard objections to "Indian" and "Native", and even seen some for First Nations (but not personally), although that has now become the accepted term in Canada for indigenous peoples who are not Inuit or Metis, but not to "Aboriginal". Note that when Aboriginal peoples set up a television network, they chose to call it the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network and they called their radio network Aboriginal Voices. Other organizations or events that use the term aboriginal include the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, National Aboriginal Day, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Aboriginal Multi-Media Society, etc., not to speak of the Canadian constitution or Statistics Canada, see [6] & [7] for examples. You might want to take a look at numerous discussions that have taken place on Wikipedia, including Native American name controversy, Talk:Native_Americans#Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas and subsequent sections, Talk:First Nations, Canadian wikipedians' notice board, etc. I am curious to know how you got the idea that "Aboriginal" is offensive to Canadian indigenous peoples. Luigizanasi 06:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's strange. Why then do the Native Council of Nova Scotia, the Mi'kmaq Business & Service Directory, and a Mi'kmak spirituality site, to mention only three Mi'kmak web sites, seem to have no problem with the "Aboriginal" term and in fact use it. You got me curious, do you have any references to objections of the word "Aboriginal"? BTW, using the word "Tribe" for a First Nation is definitely considered offensive here in the Yukon, although "Tribal Council" is OK to some. Luigizanasi 06:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Compromise

Codex, can you please go here[8], and see if you feel like leaving a short comment there?; it is very important to me. ThanksZmmz 09:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Codex, I gratful that you left a comment on that page on my behalf, but please be kind enough to move your comments here, by today if possible, because they want it to be submitted in this page[9]. Thank you so muchZmmz 18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you Codex for your kind comments; it worked. I`m grateful.Zmmz 19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Concrete information on Noah-like floods

Codex, when I said your list gave no concrete information, what was really bothering me was the way it was presented - a bare list. If you could turn it into a prose sentence or paragraph I'd feel much happier. (But I'd also like to see some judgement given regarding the meaning of the parallels, including explanations for other than the memory-of-a-real-event one). Hope this explains my earlier revert. PiCo 00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't really "my" list, someone else had added it - and I know it wasn't really presented or formatted correctly, and needs to be... I just thought blanking it out entirely was a little overboard, especially with the reason given being "no concrete information", it seemed to me that it certainly was "information", just information in a very raw form... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

ok I'm not really in a Wikipedia mindframe right now and will leave it alone.

Picture in Ethiopia

I really liked the old one (http://flickr.com/photos/babasteve/3395571/). The shadow was part of what made the photograph so good. The person who took the photo is actually a professional photographer, and the image has been included in many collections honoring good photos. Would you mind if I restored it or replaced it with a less shadowy image? I just think that the new one doesn't look as good (he looks too modern[?] or something).

Yom 01:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hey Codex, you're welcome, as regards the single sentence addition I put in at Sun. I don't usually edit science articles since I have no expertise in those fields, although one of the things I intensely desire is to become a polymath. What prompted me to do so was after hearing a lecture at my soon-to-be alma mater about the challenges of confronting a post-petroleum world. The speaker mentioned the sun was the source of all energy on this planet (a pretty phenomenal fact in itself; how often do you look-- indirectly, of course-- at the sun and recognize its power over human life?). He mentioned wind, so, after seeing that the article didn't mentioned that, I went over to the article on wind and applied what I learned there to the sun article. Anyway this response is getting kind of silly in its long-windedness. I wish you the best of eudaimonia. --Matthew 06:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Do you know anything about making a user page look stylish? If so, feel free to edit my user page.

Phoenicia

Hello Codex. My apologies for the edits to the Phoenicia external links section, which I noticed you adjusted. I put them in there because I noticed that the links provided are very biased and are not academically accredited. I thought that they would be very misleading for people wanting to learn more about the Phoenicians. Eitherway I see you point, apologies again, but I would like for someone to review those links a second time. They're a little bit controversial and one of them swung dangerously toward a more right-wing Falangist agenda. All the best, Euganeo 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Princess Romanework

Hello Codex Sinaiticus,

I hope you do not think I have been ignoring you over the past months by not returning your messages. It is just that I have been trying to figure out this Wikipedia thing in the middle of an extremely busy schedule.

About H.I.H. Princess Romanework Haile Selassie. I am not sure what your contacts are with the Imperial family of Ethiopia, but I urge you to ask them, or ask some other source you trust such as Professor Pankhurst whether or not Her Imperial Highness was not the fully aknowledged daughter of Emperor Haile Selassie. I am distantly related to the late Princess's husband, Dejazmatch Beyene Merid, who was a great hero of the struggle agianst fascist Italy, during which he gave his life. My great-grandmother used to visit the Princess while she was imprissoned in Addis Ababa shortly before she was shipped off to Italy and her death, and used to weep when she remembered the suffering of this daughter of our ancient Imperial House. I myself am witness to the deep grief openly displayed by her late Imperial Highness Princess Tenagnework upon the death of Dejazmatch Merid Beyene, the son of Princess Romanework, in 1989, and am witness to the fact that the entire Imperial family went into full mourning for a year for this grandson of Emperor Haile Selassie. The questioning of the Princess' paternity on a public forum such as Wikipedia is causing seriously hurt feelings in certian quarters, and questions are being raised that this is being done deliberately and may even cause some serious misunderstandings. I urge you to verify that the Princess is indeed the daughter of His Imperial Majesty, and then please refrain from putting the word "alleged" before the word daughter.

Sendeq

Chinese characters

Hi codex, I've just made major edit in the lead, history and formation of chinese characters and i'll trying to make more edit in another sectino. but from time to time, i can still see grammatical mistakes in the page. Could you help us improve it? Thanks! --Yau 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Armageddon

Thanks for the edits, I wasn't sure just how to fix all that. George 21:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pocahontas's secret name

Why did you decribe Motoaka / Amonute as Pocahontas's "secret name"? As I understand it, these were her proper names, as opposed to the nickname Pocahontas, but they can't have been very 'secret' if the English knew them. But maybe you know something I don't? The Singing Badger 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC

First Nations

I note your objection to the objection of the term "First Nations". By law, "First Nations" are merely a body of domestic ethnic minorities in Canada. They have no standing under International Law, nor do they have any rights enshrined in the Canada Constitution Act, 1982, Section 25, and 35, and they have no recourse to appeal to the UN, except as domestic ethnic minorities.

That is the reason for the contreversy over the term. A lot of people believe they are doing Indigenous people a big favour when they use the term "First Nations" -- but what it actually does is continue to develop the assimilationist and extinguishment of Aboriginal Rights and Aboriginal Land Title agenda of the Federal Government. I understand that people mean well by the term, but believe me, it's not helping. Thanks -- Somena.

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ethiopia

Just letting you know it's officially gone live now. Hopefully we can get a lot done through it! — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 04:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check it out again, there's some discussion about transliteration that you'd be interested in, and decisions are beginning to be made — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 05:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/In many languages...

Thank you for the Amharic translation --Cat out 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sabaeans

Ok, I see what you mean. I missed the context. I understood it as Ethopians=Sabaeans=Yemenians. Thanks for correcting me.Jidan 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Ethiopia

You're right Feqade/Codex. Please make the appropriate subsection when you can (I'll try to get to it if not) so that we can begin discussion. Also, note that I've created a Book of Aksum article, which I thought you might be interested in helping expand. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC

Repeated posts

I have left a message[10] on Thumbelina's talk page. Please let me know if she continues to harass you. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UT

Farewell

Since Centrx keeps on reverting it, I'll post here my message "for you"

• New username: CodexVaticanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) obviously now impersonating you, Codex Sitaiticus, to push his agenda. Ryūlóng 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply run out of names. Did not mean to insult anyone, particulary my old "friend" CS. Take it as an homage.

P.S. what does bane mean?

Hi

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am having a tough time contributing. I have listed reliable sources along with objective content, only to have it altered to those who promote "heresay".

My content on Saint Paul was COMPLETELY altered because it does reflect well with some christian fundamentalists. This is not grounds for alteration. Please help me as I cannot keep track of all the various edits. I am listing numerous sources and pulling from professors in the field, this still is not good enough to some simply because individual posters think it conflicts with "acts".

Please help Biblical1 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

You are right, unfortunately what "others can live with" entails altering accurate information about Paul! Paul never knew Jesus! His first letter was intended to recruit christians who were dying, they were worried that Jesus wouldn't rise from the dead and return the "Kingdom of God" soon enough!

You can see how this information conflicts with those who interpret history from scripture.

This is not good news for them, but that is not my interest.

I see you fequently browse wikipedia, if you could help keep track of the information that is erased or altered due to biases i would appreciate it. Biblical1 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Haile Selassie's titles

Are you sure that the proper spelling is Mo'a? I'm certain that the verb in Ge'ez preserves the "w." E.g., in the Biblical passage "bizūḫān yimaw'i [wa kil'ēttu yisadadūhōmū la'ilf (womu instead of homu?)]." What do you think about this? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's the commonly used spelling, but is it the correct transliteration is what I'm asking. In Ge'ez was it Maw'a (i.e. Mew'a), or was it always written as Mo'a? See here (PDF of Munro-Hay's Aksum), and look on page 74, where you can see an Aksumite coin saying (in Ge'ez), "By this Cross you will conquer," and it says in unvocalized Ge'ez BMSQLT BZTMWʼ (i.e., something like ba masqal(t?) bazatamaw'i). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He used ዓ instead of አ or ኣ? That's weird, since it's አ in Ge'ez... — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC

Thank you so much

Codex, thank you so much for putting back what i entered into the article, which was repeatedly deleted by Yom, whom i do not agree with at all. If you know more information about the theory regarding the Sabean/influence on Ethiopia, we can perhaps add it to the history of Ethiopia. All the best to you. Cluckbang 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

The Promise Key at August 3

Hello. I see that you reverted the edits that I removed ([11]) by Skanking. I done this because the user is a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Just a heads up on why I done so; I apologise for the sake of the article. Regards, Iolakana|^T 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit of Ante Christum Natum article

You recently edited the article Ante Christum Natum to add material about Dionysus Exiguus]]. I have read about him in connection with preparing for the year 2000 computer crisis that never happened, and was wondering if you have any citation for the information you added. --Gerry Ashton 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian Sources for borders of Canaan

I'm having difficulty finding the Egyptian texts that evidence Egypt's definition of the borders of Canaan. (Even the scholarly literature appears to take a lot of presumptions for granted, and/or casually use an anachronistic definition of the term "Canaan". Can you cite which Egyptian texts clearly evidence the Egyptian's borders for Canaan? For example, you specified the Egyptian's believed the borders of Canaan began at the "Brook of Egypt": which Egyptian text uses the word "Brook of Egypt" to describe Canaan? --Haldrik 22:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reason to call it 'anachronistic'... Only because that is still the current general presumption, but I admit I wouldn't be able to reference any Egyptian texts that specify it... I don't know of any other name they would have used for the area west of the Jordan Valley (as most scholars interpret it) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ebionite Talk Page surpression

Shalom Sinaiticus,

I have been meaning to ask you about the Sinaiticus codex for some time but have not got around to it till now. Maybe the higher cause of the edit was for you to question it and me see your question when i went to look at the edit history of the talk page.

I know the real reason why it suddenly vanished you have to eather go to the archived talk section and read my responce to Loremaster asking me to assume good faith Or read the responce from my talk page. That was first posted on Loremasters talk page and soon after that Loremaster and OvadYah excanged some type of chat but its hard to tell looking at the history. Shortly after that the majority of the talk page was buried almost as if it was a lost Gosple.LOL

My question with the codex is do you have a english translation of it? I would be very interested.205.188.117.65 20:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to leave my nameNazireneMystic 20:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopian Orthodox Church Articles

I know you know a lot about the Church, so do you want to help out in writing articles on barious monks, churches, monastaries, gadlat, dirsanat, etc.? I haven't yet started, but I'm thinking of creating a list of needed church-related articles from the Encylopaedia Aethiopica (the first two volumes) to get started (there's already a list for monasteries and churches at WikiProject Ethiopia). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right on Haile Selassie. I was thinking in Amharic mode (qidim instead of ቀዳማዊ). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out Controversy over the race of Ethiopians. I've nominated it for deletion here. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Akatziri

I have scanned 4 pages if you want and we can write a good article. Let me know. --Ali doostzadeh 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi I am glad you received the article.. I think in the Agathyrsi article we should mention the conjectures (Britannica 1911 and Thompson and etc..) and then from there move it into the akatziri article. --alidoostzadeh 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Abraham a polygamist?

A couple of editors are of the opinion that Abraham was a Polygamist, so they have added Cat:Polygamist. I have doubts as to the validity of this classification. I think this was more a 'rent-a-womb' scheme than a marriage to Hagar. Do you have an opinion? I wonder if this is a LDS / Mormon attempt to add respectability to Polygamy? ^rossnixon 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Emperor collaboration

What would you think about a sort of collaboration (but not a true one) regarding the Ethiopian Emperors in which editors would add content to the existing articles one by one, chronologically? Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia/History. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Viceroy, so that we can convince Fastifex that his version uses OR and promotes a POV (that V.E. was the successor to Haile Selassie). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Ethiopian calendar, you said that the beginning of years do not coincide with the Coptic ones. What do you mean by this? Don't both start on September 11th (12 on leap years) Gregorian and August 29th (30 on leap years) Julian? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said this; there must be some kind of misunderstanding... Of course the first day of the year is the same in both... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Maraba Coffee

Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

MicMac

Hey there. I am not particularly enamored with any particular spelling of Mikmaq. I am more particularly concerned with having consistent spelling in the BODY of the wikipedia. I was leaning towards using the francis orthography but a really good argument has been made that that would be leading the trend rather than reporting on it. The question is, what is the generally accepted English language word for Mikmaq.

I think a good argument can be made for MicMac. Also Mikmaq. Also M'ikmaq. As discussed on the Mikmaq language page, we have a number of issues here 1) regional phonetic spellings in the LATIN alphabet (so, probably, English AND French) on different reservations are different 2) that might not matter, as the Germans do not call themselves Germans, but we still call them Germans in English, not Deutches or whatever it is in their native language 3) the English spelling is in transition as the stupid Euros are finally accepting that their original anglisizations are so far off the actual language that they are not particularly correct.

Most people under 40/45 seem to want to use some version of Mikmaq not MicMac. This is it is a confusing situation for us to report on because it is confusing in real life. Bottom line though is we are an encyclopedia and we have to find a framework to both clearly represent the confusion and why there is confusion, and ALSO try and find some kind of common spelling that we can use in all the Mikmaq related articles so that we do not have different spellings for the same things on different pages (ie: Migmagi, Gipuktug, etc). WayeMason 11:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

New category proposal

Hi CS, have you had a glance at Aecis' proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia/Geography? -- llywrch 02:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FWD: Aztec written documents?

For some reason, I believe the following message was left on my talk page instead of yours:[12]

To Codec Sinaiticus:

Do you know of any existing evidence of Aztecs' writings? I would greatly appreciate specific references.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonKichot (talk • contribs) .

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What does "the late 1960s" mean?

I deleted "late" from a reference to the hippies' 1965 beginning as "the late 1960s" because to me "the late 1960s" implies a date in the latter third or even quarter of the decade. You restored it, arguing (correctly) that 1965 was in the second half of the decade 1960-1969. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I really feel that 1965 is not a "late 1960s" date and that the retention of this adjective is misleading. (As a boomer myself, I also feel that the spirit that birthed the hippies was already in the air by 1964; but that's neither here nor there.) I'd ask you to revert that one yourself, Codex, rather than my just going in and doing it without having this discussion.--Orange Mike 01:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Maybe:

1960-63, early; 1964-66 mid; 1967-69 late.

Keeping it simple: 1960's. Apostle12 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Current Kazakh Cabinet

Sorry, I couldnt see why you were adding the first letters of their names, but now I see they have the same last name. That was what what was bugging me. Regards, KazakhPol 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Leeman & the Ark of the Covenant

Hi Codex -- I'm puzzled over your partial revert of my edit. That paragraph I removed covers only his theory that the Biblical Israel should be properly located in Western Arabia -- which is commonly believed to be a fringe theory. How does that relate to the Ark, let alone Ethiopia's claims to possess the original object? -- llywrch 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that we agree. I'll gladly admit that there are some things in Dr Leeman's book that are worth including, & I'm working on doing just that. (Unfortunately, I don't multitask very well.) -- llywrch 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Iyaric

Whoops! I read that as Lyaric, wasnt on the ball. Cheers, SqueakBox 17:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sumerian Articles

Thanks for your work on the articles I created concerning Sumerian monarchs. Your editing/adding/antivandalizing and incorporation of my articles into existing Sumerian articles was very helpful.User:Crispus 4:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Odet de Coligny

I see you contributed to the article Gaspard de Coligny. Would you like to help get his brother Odet's from B-class to A-class? Neddyseagoon - talk 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Vandal on Asia

Hi there -- thanks for your note. I guess I was thinking about Newspeak when I reverted that vandalism: I and my colleagues invoke usage of 'hatecrime' (sometimes whimsically) whenever anything of a deprecating nature is said of a person or group in our non-profit office. However, when calling out racism, sometimes a spade is a spade ... er, no pun intended. ;) Crimethink, no doubt. Anyhow, I will be more observant in the future. Merci! Psychlopaedist 07:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Trouble at Moses Page

Hello. I saw that you said we needed a page protect for a "vandal bot" on the Moses page. I'm somewhat confused as to whom you're referring. I made what I thought were some good amendments to the article but it seems that certain IPs have been trailing me all around Wikipedia, reverting every one of my edits on every page. 71.76.219.92 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible revert error?

Just noticing the edit war on the Moses article. There is a floating IP that has reverted the article back to your edit of December 13, 2006 21:20 GMT. The last 2 edits by you have replaced the contributions of vandal IP 71.76.219.92. I am unsure of the content added in by that IP with regards to verifiability. But the text itself includes several dozen wiki-links to common words which, if I read the Manual of Style guidelines correctly, is taboo. Is it possible that a version prior to the IP edit war should be restored to cover any other possible gaffs in the article? Just wondering. Good luck and good day. Seal Clubber 04:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As for wikilinking "several dozen common words", that is plainly false. I wikilinked only about 25 words in total--hardly "several dozen"--and only two or three of those might be contstrued as common. As for the verifiability, I'd be happy to go over that with anyone on a point by point basis, if necessary. Any "gaffs" that I made in wikilinking an extra word or two are surely compensated for by the valuabe geographical and etymological information I've added, which this article was sorely lacking, not to mention that it skipped the Heresy of Peor, and the battles with Og and Sihon entirely. 71.76.219.92 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I thought 71.76.219.92 was a vandal at first because he reverted some of my corrections, but the rest seems like good faith improvements, so I remade the changes. Then this floating IP comes from nowhere and with no explanation goes back to before I ever made the corrections. Note that the words slaves' should not appear as slave's in the intro. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahasuerus

Hi, something went wrong in your last edit of Ahasuerus, I'll leave it to you to fix.

About the statement that both kings names are Ahikar in the CS, I'm not sure if I am understanding it correctly - do you mean that the CS has Ahikar for both Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus??

Going off topic, I'd be interested in hearing your views on the setting of the book of Judith - who are Arphaxad and Nebuchadnezzar in Judith, is the setting the Assyrian period or Seleucid or entirely fictional etc etc. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake reverting Tower of Babel

Sorry for my rv of Tower of Babel. [13] I was cleaning vandalism from Current political events of Venezuela [14], checked 24.13.221.135 contribs and didn't notice the vandalism to Tower of Babel had happened on 19 November and not 19 December. Thanks for fixing it, I will try to be more careful in the future. —JRSP 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Amoudi

Can you help out at Mohammed Al Amoudi? There's a few users who insist that he is pure Arab, despite sources to the contrary (of course providing no sources themselves). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Paytakaran

Hi. I noticed that you contributed to Caucasian Albania related articles before, maybe you can help us resolve the dispute with regard to the ancient province of Paytakaran? Regards, Grandmaster 13:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Schoeps on Ebionites and Anti-Gnosticism

Hello CS,

On 16:45, 30 July 2005 at 16:45, anonymous user 4.227.194.130 revised the Ebionites article to add the following sentence:

Hans-Joachim Schoeps argues that their primary influence on orthodox Christianity was to aid in the defeat of gnosticism

Since NazireneMystic has disputed the veracity of this sentence, we need to know whether or not it was you who added it and if you can provide some quotations in the Talk:Ebionites page to support it. --Loremaster 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me, and I am not at all familiar with Schoeps... sorry I can't be much help! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Loremaster 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

CS, welcome back to the Ebionites article. Please stop edit-warring! We are way past drive-by editing. Make your case on the Talk page, or even better, join the second peer review. :) Ovadyah 21:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Again(ውይይት), I see you have found the Ebionite article is still engulfed in the same Quagmire or Ignorance as it was last summer. You will get nowhere tring to NPOV that article. At present it is about on par with past wikipedian articles that claimed the United States or America celebrated its 750th anniversary ,Cheers! User talk:NazireneMystic

Hi CS, if you have the energy and time, could you take a look at the work-in-progress ebionites/wip, where Loremaster and myself are trying to work together more productively than in the past? You're welcome to join as well, of course, where your input would be valued. We're trying to split the article into separate POV sections, with a synthesis only in the lead and introduction. See what you think. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your question about Wagadou and Wagadougou

To my knowledge (and I study West African history A LOT) there is no connection between these states. Wagadou was founded by the Soninke as the article states between 400-800. Ouagadougou wouldn't be founded until 1441 and even then it was founded by the Mossi who have no relation to the Mande or Soninke (who are closely related to the Mande). In fact, the Mossi are closely related to the Akan people of modern day Ghana. It's more likely that Ouagadougou was formed in response to the increasingly complex states being formed by the other Mossi people in the area or as a defense against the Mali Empire or Songhai Empire. I have no idea why the names are so similar. I know that Wagadou ("dou" or or "dougou" means town in most Mande areas) roughly translates to land or town of herds ("Waga" or "Ouaga" in the Mande sense meaning herd). I don't know what Ouagadougou or Wagadougou (it is spelt that way too) actually means. Hope that was of some help. Scott Free 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. the sites stating the Empire of Ghana as Wagadougou are mistaken. I haven't found a book yet that refers to it that way.

Ebionites, Essenes and Qumran

In case you haven't read Jacob Rabinowitz's Buried Angels I recommend you do so. You'll like much of what he says, especially the identification of the Essenes and Ebionites via their self-descriptive "the Poor" and commonality of beliefs and practices. I haven't got to the end yet, but so far he presents a good coherent case. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

However since this does not reflect the POV of Yah's religion any use of Jacob Rabinowitz's work on the Ebionite page will not make this clear. By the time the article has reached featured article status it may appear Rabinowitz also believes Ebionites were anti gnositc,lol. Reading the article now would make one think Tabor is I a camp on his own and all other modern scholars are against him but Schopes, Akers, and other's that Yah's personal research has "discredited" are with Tabor. The editors overseeing the article have them pitted against each other which is a fiction and done so to push the POV of Yah's religious leader

There are many other problems with the artical including the listing and use of Phillips as a reference which is Yah's leader.When I removed that link on the Ebionite page Yah reverted it back and in the comment section about the edit he called my removing his first hand research "vandalism" In recent changes keith Akers is no longer sited in the artical but still at the bottom as a source. In the past when other sources were used in the artical and listed at the bottom Yah would later make changes in the text so that the source is no longer used and then remove the source calling it a dead link however the link was not dead but went to verifble sources on the web. This has happened so much most all the present source material used can not be found on the web at all but in Yah book collection making him the primary source for most of the material. The problem is if you start to connect the dots and demand a NPOV article you will get blocks on your account. Cheers! User talk:NazireneMystic

Pshaw! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

NM, reading Rabinowitz makes it clear that he does believe the Ebionites were anti gnostic. Saying that he believes this would just be reporting the facts.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Liturgy of the hours

I stumbled across this today and I figured you might want to have a say in it: Talk:Liturgy of the hours#Requested move. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC

Moses

Thanks for that, you beat me to it :-) I hadn't reverted deep enough. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you admin cause I have a question

The Mitanni seal which is in the Mitanni page has been approved by admin Dbachmann and others, but Nareklm wants to remove it and giving foolish reasons for it. Dbachmann even touched up the info of the seal. As I also stated images that are related to articles help Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not dull and boring. Please let this user know not to remove things that are related and help Wikipedia's causes. Ararat arev 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message regarding Franks

In response to:

Hi there, funny that you would just enter a piece about the Sicambri connection - I am in the midst of a protracted dispute over whether any of this should be mentioned on the page Sicambri with an editor who doesn't think it is valid and therefore the mediaval sources shoudl not be mentioned. I just put it on RFC too. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Scythian article, we are talking about descent claims. Not necessarily actual descent. There is no doubt that the Franks (Merovingians, more specifically Clovis) claimed descent from the Sicambri (because of Gregory of Tours). Whether or not those Sicambri are of Scythian descent is rightly debated, but the point is that the Merovingians believed it. I had a very brief talk about the relevance of this supposed connection in the talk section and, by my interpretation, the link is 'real' enough to be mentioned. Hrothberht 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the same thing I am saying. I certainly am not arguing that these claims are substantiated, nor yet that they are to be ruled out as disproven. Only that the claims exist and deserve to be mentioned. I could use your help! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How could I help? Would posting the above on Talk:Sicambri help? (I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have not responded to any RFC's yet.)

By the way, have you taken a look at the German version of the article, which also briefly mentions a supposed link between the Sicambri and Merovingians and cites two sources that have not yet been explored by Johanthon and you? They do not, however, mention Scythians or the sources that are topic of dispute, but that seems to be incompleteness on the Germans' behalf. Still, their sources might be worth checking out. Hrothberht 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot flag on french WIkipedia

Hello,

If you plan to continue to do interwiki links on the french wikipedia, you should ask for the bot flag on fr:Wikipédia:Bot/Statut.

Regards,

Chico 11:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your bot have been granted the bot flag. Continue the good work ! Chico75 22:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

February 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Mengistu Haile Mariam[15]. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you mean, my calling him a "holocaust denier" after he denied the source for a genocide of 5000 Ethiopian teenagers in 1978? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He called into question a source, he did not deny the holocaust. Do not attack the editor, only the argument. That is exactly what will get you blocked. This will not be tolerated. If you feel this is unfair you are welcome to participate in a discussion about this already going on here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Egregious_personal_attack. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Great job reverting vandalism on Roman Law. I as just about to edit it as you did. Odd coincidence that it was unnoticed for 2 days, then reverted twice at the same sime. Just glad that the Wikipedia community can respond quickly to vandalism. Freedomlinux 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Myths

Since you have a hard time understanding that the bible is allegorical containing myths borrowed from other cultures (The flood myth comes the Epic of Gilgamesh, Abraham comesfrom the story of Braham, Jesus resurrecting Lazuras is a retelling of Horus resurrecting El-Lazur-us, the Psalms have many parallels with the Vedic Hymns, Jesus used the same parables as Buddha, etc.) and somehow you think you know more about the Bible then Origen when you have never even published one exegisis, how long will you keep rejecting the truth that the 'letter of the law taketh, but the spirit giveth' ??

Why did Rabbi Simeon write:

"If a man looks upon the Torah as merely a book presenting narratives and everyday matters, alas for him! Such a torah, one treating with everyday concerns, and indeed a more excellent one, we too, even we, could compile. More than that, in the possession of the rulers of the world there are books of even greater merit, and these we could emulate if we wished to compile some such torah. But the Torah, in all of its words, holds supernal truths and sublime secrets.

Thus the tales related in the Torah are simply her outer garments, and woe to the man who regards that outer garb as the Torah itself, for such a man will be deprived of portion in the next world. Thus David said:" Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalms 119:18), that is to say, the things that are underneath. See now. The most visible part of a man are the clothes that he has on, and they who lack understanding, when they look at the man, are apt not to see more in him than these clothes. In reality, however, it is the body of the man that constitutes the pride of his clothes, and his soul constitutes the pride of his body.

Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must also be contained in an outer garment. That garment is made up of the tales and stories; but we, we are bound to penetrate beyond."

And Origen say,

"It is sufficient however, to represent in the style of a historic narrative what is intended to convey a secret meaning in the garb of history, that those who have the capacity may work out for themselves all that relates to the subject."

What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars, and the first day without a heaven. What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in paradise in Eden, like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life, perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge of good and evil? I believe that every man must hold these things for images, under which the hidden sense lies concealed." (Origen - Huet., Prigeniana, 167 Franck, p. 142).

i.e.

• Why are there no historians commenting on the slaughter of Herod killing all 2 years old? (Hint: Because there is no historical evidence of the Massacre of the Innocents)

• Why does the Genealogy of Matt 1:1-16 not match 1 Chronicles 3:10-19 by dropping 3 names, so that the totals are 14+14+14?

Lastly, even the bible itself says that it is an allegory:

Gal 4:24 "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; ..."

Gal 4:25-26 "For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

Whether a story is true or not, is completely irrelevent if you learn the moral of the story. The Bible is not a history book, but an instruction book, but you seem to be focused on the former, and not the latter, and think that you know more then a Rabbi, and other early church fathers. At the very least you do yourself, and others a great dis-service by trying to censor facts when people point out that the Bible contains Myths from other cultures.

Michael.Pohoreski 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's got an opinion. I could care less what yours or anyone else's is; here at wikipedia we don't deal in opinions (also known as 'point-of-views'. Calling the Scriptures a "myth" is a point-of-view, simple as that. It is an opinion that is not shared by everyone, therefore wikipedia is not allowed to state it as if it were a fact. If it states it at all it has to make clear that it is an opinion and also make it clear whose opinion it is. We have been through this to the tune of many megabytes on other pages before, and the arguments are still the same. The word "myth" is ambiguous and it contradicts religious teachers (including the current Pope) who have categorically stated that the Bible is NOT a myth. Since we can't take sides, we have to be neutral and that means an objectionable category like this can only be used where there is no disagreement. No other major encylopedia has ever described the Bible as "myths", for obvious reasons, and there's no reason why we should be the first. So enough of the POV pushing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, because obviously Codex you know more about the Torah, then a 2nd Century Rabbi so we should listen to your opinion over an expert! We all know that Truth depends on popularity!

Translation: "At one time, people believed the Earth was flat, or that heavier objects fell faster then lighter objects, but we can't really state the truth because the Pope doesn't acknowledge it, and since no other major encylopedia has the courage to tell the truth, we can't afford to be the first."

Because obviously, the Pope doesn't make mistakes on being an authority on scripture:

Pope Leo X, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"

Michael.Pohoreski 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Michael, once again, Wikipedia is not about my opinion, nor your opinion, nor any wikipedian's opinion. The only opinions we can use are ones that can be relaibly attributed to published sources, and are significant to the topic - such as the larger Churches' positions on canon, in the case of an article on canonical works. You seem to have a vast misconception of what wikipedia is. It is neither a platform for "breaking new ground" with our own originality by "boldly going where none has gone before", nor is it a platform for warring our own ideas and opinions against contrary ones and trying to make the project take sides instead of staying neutral. Those are the very two things that are expressly disallowed. The opinion of popes and other siginificant religious leaders can be cited and attributed in articles, and the opinion of other scholars, even the ones who insist that it is mythology, can likewise be cited in articles. But a POV-pushing category, using a word that has historically been used to attack religious beliefs, is anything but neutral, cannot be cited or attributed, and appears to be taking sides in the dispute. Such categories can only be used in those situations where there is no significant disagreement. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And once again, you still don't understand scripture or its purpose:

1. Which "Church" has the authority to interpret scripture?

2. How can you claim the Roman Catholic church is some "authority" when they can't even practice what is written:

a) They do NOT have the authority to be teachers

• Matt 23:8-10 But you are not to be called rabbi (teacher/father), for you have one teacher, and you are all students.

b) Priests are still banned from being married (from the 12th century!), which contradicts 1 Tim 3:1 - 4, yet the first "Pope" Peter was married?? [Should Catholic Priests Be Allowed to Marry?]

1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.

c) Origin already pointed out how the Roman Catholic Church falsely tries to justify their authority via Matthew 16:18, by writing about the difference between petros and petra:

"Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord" they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "Thou art Peter," etc., down to the words, "prevail against it." But what is the "it"? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs, cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it."

3. Yet somehow the church understands doctrine better then the disciple Peter when he states:

For there would have been no need of Moses, or of the coming of Jesus, if of themselves they would have understood what is reasonable. Neither is there salvation in believing in teachers and calling them lords.

4. Do you even understand what a church is?

• 1 Cor 3:9 For we are laborers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
• 1 Cor 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If anyone defiles the Temple, him shall God destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
• 2 Cor 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
• 2 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

5. And yet you continue espouse the claim that the Church understands the Torah better then a Rabbi!! Amazing! I guess the disciple Peter didn't know what he was talking either about when Clement the disciple of Peter asked him:

"Wherefore tell me what are the falsehoods added to the Scriptures, and how it comes that they are really false."

And Peter gives these answers:

"For the Scriptures have had joined to them many falsehoods against God on this account. The prophet Moses having by the order of God delivered the law, with the explanations, to certain chosen men, some seventy in number, in order that they also might instruct such of the people as chose, after a little the written law had added to it certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God,30 who made the heaven and the earth, and all things in them; the wicked one having dared to work this for some righteous purpose.

"Even although you had not asked me, I should have gone on in order, and afforded you the exposition of these matters, as I promised. Learn, then, how the Scriptures misrepresent Him in many respects, that you may know when you happen upon them."

6. Yet you continue to ignore the evidence of early church fathers such as Eusebius, when he writes that

" Many were led astray by reading the allegorical contents of the scriptures literally in the method of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

7. Now maybe you will understand why Jesus criticized the Pharisees?

"Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.” (Luke 11:52)

Clearly we should listen to men, 2000 years after the fact, because they have the "Authority" and In-Depth knowledge of how to interpret scripture better then the people living closest to when the events happened, yet you still bemoan about published sources?!?! At least pretend to try R E A D I N G scripture, history, and some of the early church fathers sometime.

Michael.Pohoreski 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are indeed some very interesting perspectives, but I doubt they are going to succeed in changing Wikipedia cornerstone policy with regard to neutrality or original research. Nice try, though. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

salting the earth

I wasn't sure if it was OR. What I inserted had a question mark, I wasn't sure if it was OR or what, there is no reference to the source of that data. Do you know where it's from? -Mike Payne 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• From the salary article. Thanks. -Mike Payne

WPW newsletter

The Writing systems WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - December 2006
News Welcome to the newsletter of the Writing systems WikiProject, everyone. Our project currently has 29 members. Any questions or requests for assistance on writing system articles can be posted at WT:WPW. Our Article Assessment Project is currently underway. Feel free to contribute by assessing and improving all unassessed articles according to the assessment page. Any help is appreciated. We would like to bring all mid-, high-, and top-importance articles to at least B class by the end of the year. We are working on implementing writing systems templates into appropriate articles. Try to help out!	Writing system articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 1 3 GA 3 3 3 3 12 B 16 84 92 189 18 399 C 16 74 93 219 30 432 Start 5 138 358 1,020 60 1,581 Stub 2 21 475 52 550 List 2 12 14 414 7 449 Category 327 327 Disambig 1 1 10 12 File 28 28 Portal 2 2 Project 6 6 Redirect 10 32 57 191 290 Template 2 3 11 414 430 NA 32 3 2 37 Other 8 8 Assessed 44 325 649 2,393 988 167 4,566 Unassessed 1 1 Total 44 325 649 2,393 989 167 4,567 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 14,154 Ω = 4.75
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to edit the next issue, please drop a message on the discussion page.

This is the project's first newsletter. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas about it, feel free to post it on WT:WPW. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Yeah, I saw him blanking an FAC subpage, and I began following him from there. As for the semi-protection: done. Poke me whenever you want it unprotected. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your heroic performance of the long overdue merge of Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria to Cuneiform script, I award you this Epic Barnstar. Selket Talk 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unicode Latin

Template:Unicode Latin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ✉Hello World! 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

FDuffy

Codex, I've left a message pertinent to FDuffy (talk · contribs) on this page.[16] Your opinion and assistance would be very much appreciated. In particular, we need to trawl that user's contributions and examine them with a fine-toothed comb for policy violations. Since you clashed with him over Sons of Noah (which is still full of original research), he has caused much upheaval throughout the project. JFW | T@lk 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamazi article

It appears to me that the intent of the person who put the {{unreferenced}} tag on this article was not to challenge your information, but to encourage you (and anyone else with knowledge in this subject area) to improve the article. Besides adding credibility to your work for people who don't know you, citing your sources enhances the value of your article by providing references to allow people to further their research. The {{unreferenced}} tag says "Great information, but please share with us where you got it from" (if someone had thought the information was worthless, they would have tagged the article for speedy deletion instead!) Bgwwlm 12:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

When editors want to challenge a specific statement, and they add "citation needed" templates to that specific statement, it is much easier to resolve, by looking for a reliable source to verify (or refute) that specific statement that was challenged.

I just don't see how slapping a great big, vague "unreferenced tag" at the top of the entire article within one minute of its creation is in any way helpful to anyone. If there is a specific statement that you have doubts or questions about, please use the "citation needed" tags to help me know exactly what I'm supposed to be looking for -- that is useful. But with this vague, general tag, I don't know what statements are in doubt, which of the primary sources already mentioned might appear suspect, or if I am just expected to prove every single word written there. It seems that the article as a whole has been challenged. This is the attitude that actually discourages me from ever writing any more articles here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to challenge any of your statements in particular; this is not an expression of doubt, but a request to conform to a certain level of academic formalism. Ideally, for each piece of information you provide, there is a reference you can click on to see where that information came from. Take a look at the formatting standards at Wikipedia:Citing_sources, or even just a featured article to see how they make a list of sources. Bgwwlm 13:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete the article, if you really want to hold it to a higher standard than 99% of the other articles here. Remember I am only doing this as a hobby, by volunteering my time and knowledge when I don't really have to, and I am starting not to care if you get quality information or not, any more. The ones actually making a living out of this whole operation who are only exploiting the 100% free labour and expertise of us, the contributors. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take no offense from the clean-up templates; they are not a criticism to your work, but they serve as an indicator for future editors that sources should be cited to make Wikipedia articles verifiable. Your contributions are appreciated; nobody is telling you to improve it, and nobody is considering the article for deletion. However, citing sources is very much appreciated, since an uninformed editor (such as me) cannot currently even tell whether it's a hoax or not (I'm not implying that it is).

As Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven effort, it is almost impossible to guarantee uniform enforcement of policies. However, the level of scrutinity has increased for new articles from what it used to be, due to more editors patrolling recently created articles for various reasons.

(P.S: your talk page is getting inconveniently long, please archive some of it when you can spare the time) -- intgr 23:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ethnic family" controversy - reply

Codex, you unjustifiably reverted my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kambojas&action=history , simply dismissing it with a patronizing ad hominem on my supposed ignorance on the subject. Oh, I'm well versed in genetic anthropology, thank you. The simple point I want to make is that languages are not the same as people, and modern genetic research has shown that PIE linguistics has very little to do with direct ancestry, least of all in peripheral areas such as Central/South Asia. All major studies by the likes of Cavalli-Sforza, Skyes, Semino, Torroni, etc. are unanimous in stating a rather complex scenario of genetic admixture and limited migratory movements during the spread of Indo-European languages (and other language families, like Turkic, which is even more diverse and has even less to do with direct ancestry). Equating purely linguistic classifications with ethnic classifications is a mistake. Different groups mix and spread or shift their languages and cultural practices all the time in human history, and the linguistic divisions that arise as a consequence of language change are simply areal traits caused by some form of contact between two cultures at agiven time; but they certainly do not imply any relatedness between the groups that speak these languages. Also note that "Ethnic Family" in most contexts refers either to a tightly knit tribal group or recently scattered tribes (such as some agriculturalist tribes in Africa) or, more literally, to a family allegedly belonging to a particular ethnic background, especially minority or isolated groups (e.g., "he was raised in a Hmong ethnic family", etc.). None of these usages apply in the case I mentioned. Try looking for a scientific concept of ethnic family in a Wikipedia article. You will find none. This is so simply because it is too vague and its assumptions are too outdated (being clearly based on 19th Century racism-riddled ethnocentrism and nationalism) to have any use in science. 201.21.255.59 05:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, whatever you say, but you know it has always been used in hisotriographic contexts, always... the supposed absence of any such things as ethnic families is really a very new concept only recently being propagated by science, it seems... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta

On 11 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

yandman 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I strongly advise you not to let this happen again. yandman 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to let what happen again? I am only replacing an NPOV tag because I dispute the neutrality of declaring any modern religious text including the Bible or Quran as "mythology" no matter how benign or innocent they pretend that label "mythology" is, it has always been used explicitly to ridicule belief at every stage in history. How can you honestly pretend this is a "neutral point of view" ??? I call it an ANTAGONISTIC POINT OF VIEW. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the uncivil commentary. I've learned to ignore your uncivility in trying to read your discussions. Orangemarlin 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Codex Sinaiticus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

my reverts were only to restore proper application of dispute tag (NPOV); editors removing the tag are denying that any POV dispute even exists now. They are also denying that any editor has any right to challenge or dispute their actions of egregious bias. There has got to be a better system of fairness to protect basic neutrality and not sham neutrality of wikipedia

Decline reason:

Incivility and edit warring. — Yamla 18:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vandalism I couldn't revert while blocked

G

Done Orangemarlin 18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark solution

If you want the community to weigh in on your Noah's Ark dispute, you might want to try a request for comment. --Hemlock Martinis 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to file an WP:ANI against Box36. That wasn't acceptable under any condition. Orangemarlin 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion

There is nothing improper about removing a project template from an article when it was not added by a project participant in the first place, and which none of them has added to its acknowledged list of articles. Soliciting their opinion is one thing -- although standing on your credentials is a highly questionable tactic considering certain recent events -- but speaking for them unasked is another matter entirely. Why don't you allow someone actually on the project to make this decision? And why do you think you're entitled to when you're not a member yourself? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. just as I noted. BTW, Codex, this merely serves to prove my assertion that you lied: Noah's Ark is not part of the religion project. Your behaviour is becoming increasingly tendentious. •Jim62sch• 11:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You should not say I lied, Jim, because I had certainly added Noah's Ark to the WP:RELIGION project article list page myself, and well before TCC wrote that. True I was not a member when I added the article, but it is still there, because the project hopes to gradually get all articles pertaining to three or more world religions. I have also now signed up with WP:RELIGION seeing as it makes a difference; noone has asked me to resubmit the article to the list now that I am officially a member. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Jim62sch

In addition to the section directly above where Jim62sch calls me a "liar" for claiming Noah's Ark is supported by WP:RELIGION (where I am a member, and where I indeed added the article to the article list myself on the morning of 20 April, because it involves more than 3 world religions), now that I am blocked and unable to defend myself in response, Jim62sch's personal attacks and goading against me continue. In particular this edit where he states, without any factual basis in reality whatsoever: "Codex' world-view in re religion is "unique" and unsupported by sources, and thus his edits, which reflect that world-view, are frequently deleted or modified substantially."

Dear Jim62sch, that would be incorrect. You do not even know what my personal "world-view in re religion" IS, because I have never shared it with you or anyone else on wikipedia, nor have I ever stated what religious body, if any, I am a member of, nor how many millions of members it may or may not have. But without even knowing of what you speak, you so confidently state that my views are "unique". As an editor, I keep everyone's views in mind and do not try to push my own beliefs or lack of beliefs. For all you know, I could be a Buddhist. What qualifies you to pass judgement on and demonize my contribution to wikipedia and wrongly claim that my edits are "frequently deleted"??? Many of the articles I wrote from scratch in the past 2 years have never even been touched by another editor. I would ask that you retract this utterly wrong personal attack against me as an editor, that you seemingly feel free to flout the attack policies and gloat without any fear of blocking or censure, guess it must be nice to have buddies in "high" places eh...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Codex. You should relax for a while. Your discussion edits are usually inflammatory, which I think exacerbates the situation rather than diffusing it. As for your religious view, it's not necessary for you to state it, as you say. However, you seem to combat any editor that has an idea separate from your POV, so it begins to appear that you do have a fairly fundamentalist religious POV, whether you say you do or not. There are a number of editors who have the same level of Biblical inerrancy, yet take a less combative tone with various editors. Jim, believe it or not, is your polar opposite. From my perspective, you both are very tough on the opposing viewpoint, but if you think he violates WP:CIVIL, it would be in almost the same way as you do. I don't think either of you do, but I'm not an administrator, and I did not block you. Orangemarlin 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24h for disruption. Your edits to Noah's Ark appear to reflect a determination to enforce your views rather than a willingness to explore compromise; regardless, tagging a featured article as {{totallydisputed}} ([17]) on such flimsy grounds is disruptive as you have been informed before. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So anyone can add inaccuracies to a featured article, and after three reverts nobody may dispute because it's a featured article? Nobody has responded yet to the talkpage discussion I initiated about why the "quasi-Abrahamic" classification is WRONG! It's just block first, discuss later, or never... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Codex Sinaiticus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by a partisan editor in this dispute over the factual accuracy and neutrality of referring to Sabian religion as "Abrahamic" when they are not classified as such and specifically reject Abraham. It also appears my contributions to wikipedia are not valued.

Decline reason:

Clear edit warring. — Yamla 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Codex Sinaiticus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Block is unfair, No policy was ever cited that prevents me from disputing recent incorrect changes to an article just because it once received FA status

Decline reason:

Use the talk page in the future. — John Reaves (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Codex Sinaiticus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This unblock was unfair, selective, and arbitrary (not covered by any policy whatsoever, it was done by the whim of a partisan editor), the fact of the matter is I was the ONLY one to raise the issue on the article's talkpage and I was summarily blocked wwhen none of the other have even attempted to discuss the factual error I am disputing - so what the hell do you mean "use the talk page in the future???"

Decline reason:

Your block is reset for disrupting your own talk page, namely by abusing the unblock template, yelling around below and attacking other editors ("partisan editor", "frigging Einsteins"). This will hopefully give you more time to calm down. As explained below, discuss controversial changes on the talk page next time instead of trying to edit-war about them. — Sandstein 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This block is arbitrary, unjustified, unfair and partisan

There are FACTUAL ERRORS on the Noah's Ark page now. It WRONGLY states that the MANDAEAN, YEZIDI and BAHAI religions are all considered "QUASI-ABRAHAMIC" (a previously unheard of categorization). The correct categorization for the first two is SABIAN and the correct categorization for the Bahai is Abrahamic. There's no such classification as "Quasi-Abrahamic", that is an original Wikipedia coinage / neologism. I corrected it three times and had no more reverts, then I got reverted again by these friggin' Einsteins, when their version is WRONG WRONG WRONG and mine is RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT. Since I had no more reverts and the article was continually being returned to a FACTUALLY INACCURATE STATE (where it still is) I resorted to adding a "factually disputed" tag. And WHAMMO! Without any knowledge of the "secret rule" that isn't published anywhere, whereby those who dispute articles that have had FA status may be blocked without warning, I got blocked by an editor who thinks the Bible may be called "mythology". NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS, LABELLING THE MIRACLES DESCRIBED IN THE CHRISTIAN OR MUSLIM SCRIPTURES WITH THE NASTY PEJORATIVE "MYTHOLOGY" IS AN OFFENSIVE ATTACK ON NEUTRALITY, AND WIKIPEDIA'S BEHAVIOUR AND HOSTILITY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF BILLIONS IS NOT GOING UNNOTICED BY THE WORLD. This will also be officially brought to the attention of JIMBO WALES. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

SIRS: DISTRIBUTING BLOCKS TO YOUR OPPONENTS JUST TO FURTHER YOUR AGENDA OF LABELLING THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN AS "MYTHOLOGY" AND THEN CALLING THAT "NEUTRAL" JUST SHOWS THE DISGUSTING MENTALITY OF THE FORCES I AM UP AGAINST HERE. I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG WHATSOEVER AND HAVE VIOLATED NO POLICIES WHATSOEVER AND WOULD LIKE TO BE UNBLOCKED NOW BECAUSE THIS BLOCK IS PURELY "POLITICAL", AND ANYTHING BUT FAIR ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 MILLION BAHAIS IN THE WORLD ALONE, WHO REVERE NOAH AS A PROPHET, THAT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO QUALIFY FOR A "SIGNIFICANT VIEWPOINT" BUT WIKIPEDIA CONSIDERS IT "NEUTRAL" TO TELL THEM THEIR BELIEFS ARE NOW MYTHOLOGY, TO THE POINT OF EVEN BLOCKING THOSE WHO DISSENT. THERE ARE 1.4 BILLION MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD WHO ALSO REVERE NOAH AS A PROPHET, ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT VIEWPOINT. I HAVEN'T EVEN ATTEMPTED TO COUNT THE NUMBERS OF CHRISTIANS OR JEWS WHO HAVE THIS VIEWPOINT YET. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry to see you go. Take care, SqueakBox 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

redirecting your user page

Your user page automatically redirects you to your talk page... How did you do that? :) -Mike Payne 06:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• He just replaced the content with #Redirect [[User Talk:Codex Sinaiticus]]. You can do the same by replacing your talk page with #Redirect [[User Talk:Mike Payne]] (copy and paste from the talk page, as the comment contains some wikimarkup). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahh I'm a retard. :P I've made redirect pages before just I guess didn't put two and two together that you can do that to ANY page. :) -Mike Payne 06:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Religion" and "mythology"

Wow, you're really passionate about this issue. I admire that, although I disagree with your position.

• As you know, the scholarly use of the word "myth" doesn't imply falsehood. And, since Wikipedia tries to be a scholarly resource, it must use the scholarly definition of a word.
• I disagree about the whole "living religion" vs "nonliving religion" distinction. When does a religion stop "living"? Is Norse paganism a "dead" religion? Well, no -- Asatru think they're practicing it.
• Some clearly "living" religions don't have a general opposition to calling their stories "myths": at UC Berkeley, there's a class on "Hindu Mythology".
• Wikipedia should educate the public about the scholarly usage of a word precisely to avoid disputes like this one when the public reads "real" (non-Wikipedia) scholarly works. For instance, scientific Wikipedia articles don't use the word "theory" to mean "guess" or "mere hypothesis"; they use it in the sense accepted by the scientific community: a hypothesis that has been empirically verified.

Perhaps, just to avoid the hassle of quarrels, Wikipedia should have a policy of not applying the term "myth" to any religious stories; however, that isn't about to happen. Imagine the uproar if someone decided we weren't allowed to call Greek pagan stories "myths"!

However, my main objective here isn't to berate you for your decision. You've probably heard all the above points before. My objective is to inform you of a new development in Wikipedia's "mythology project": see the discussion page here.

Does this help? --Phatius McBluff 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sargon of Akkad

is now an FAC. Since you did some work on this article I thought you might be interested. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Franks FAR

Franks 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.--Peter Andersen 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites FAR

Ebionites 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. -- Avi 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

question about the resurrection of the dead

I asked you a question in this talk page. Thanks in advance for looking at it. --Squallgreg 14:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Orange (fruit)

The Orange (fruit) article received heavy editing today by unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Debatepedia, affirmative action

Codex, I saw your edits on the Affirmative Action page and figured I'd point you to the Affirmative Action debate on Debatepedia. We're really trying hard to community-build there, and maybe you could help. Thanks http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Affirmative_Action_in_the_United_States -- Debaterx (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)