Jump to content

User talk:Zhomron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jerm (talk | contribs) at 01:33, 19 March 2022 (→Hanunu: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Zhomron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Doug Weller talk 16:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I haven't done anything about your edits

but where you haven't added sources you need to, and note that our articles can't be used as sources. ~See also Help:Referencing for beginners. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright Zhomron (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Davidic line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Gath and Bayt
Jeroboam's Revolt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to House of David
Sodom and Gomorrah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qos (deity), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sodom and Gomorrah

Hi, I see your edits to Sodom and Gomorrah have been reverted for weak reasons. A number of other people have added the same information to the page, only to have it deleted. I suggest you add your opinion to the discussion at the bottom of Talk:Sodom and Gomorrah, and perhaps a consensus will emerge that the information can remain. Ar2332 (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of Creationism will of course want to use Creationist sources, even conference papers. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Yeah I'm really not interested in making this the hill I die on. I thought something was a peer-reviewed paper, it wasn't, it got removed. I see no reason to try and make a case for it on the page. Zhomron (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kenite hypothesis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Urtext and Amos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Table of prophets of Abrahamic religions does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 11:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Zhomron (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genesis flood narrative, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sarai, Urtext and Ararat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Proto-Sinaitic script, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About your edits

I saw some of your edits and you show knowledge of Bible scholarship. But does not mean that you would be exempted from citing your sources for each and every claim you make. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Ten Lost Tribes, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Huldra (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I've never even edited the page for this. Also, seriously? That little warning lede isn't fooling me. I put it the history of Nablusi soap and suddenly I'm a disruptor? I'm a propaganda machine?

I know who you are. I've seen your edit history, and I've seen how you deal with anyone who disagrees with your political views. I'm not going for it. Where the hell do you people get off, I swear. Zhomron (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the text says: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It is a standard template for anyone showing an interest in the IP-area on en.wp, thank you, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read no personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

You have already broken the WP:1RR on Nabulsi soap‎, in addition to the fact that you shouldn't edit it at all, (as you do not have 500 edits yet), Please do not repeat that.

If you do; WP:AE is next, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: Understood, but how would I go about citing them considering there are no direct citations on the pages themselves? Do I just pop something on the talk page and direct people there in an edit summary? Zhomron (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have a source, don't add it. Consider tagging it on the linked page as [citation needed] or if it's a WP:DOB issue, immediately remove it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: My point is I have sources. How am I citing them on a page with no citations Zhomron (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Just add the source like you would in any other article. All of the DOTY pages have at least a few sources at this point. Here's the background:
The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so things have changed so that all new entries require a direct source.
The DOTY project had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.
So about two years ago the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.
We could use your help in:
  1. Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
  2. Heling us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.
I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's core policy that citation needed tags should not be removed without adding a source

I did look for one at Zoara but the map there says possible only. After I reverted you I deleted the problematic text and posted to the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Aiiie.... my mistake. TFLMK Zhomron (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, some good may have come out of it that wouldn't have otherwise if it can be sourced. And someone who knows more than I do may make sure we spell the city names consistently. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Cursive Samaritan Hebrew

Hello, Zhomron. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cursive Samaritan Hebrew".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yahwism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judah.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Moabite language, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. The text you installed was removed as unsourced a while back. Without a source, it can't stay. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cave of the Patriarchs

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sabians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandaic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bábism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yahshua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hebrew phonology.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Welcome!

Hello, Zhomron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Moloch did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. --Ermenrich (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cave of the Patriarchs historicty

The fact that Abraham, and his immediate relations, have no evidence of being actual people in history means they have no bones and SOMEWHERE in this article it must be mentioned. So where?a The lede would be best. We are not to deceive the readership into thinking the crypt contains bones of people that didn't exist. Alatari (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your deal is with the Cave but these edits are unnecessarily callous

Abraham has been found to be a literary construct after a hundred years of serious archeaology. The truth can be callous but we do not edit Wikipedia to preserve people's feelings. We put in the sourced evidence. There are no bones of Abaraham or Sarah to be found in that cave. Also, hypothesis/cojectures do not become theories until properly tested. Being trained in the sciences, I will not stand to see the word misused. Alatari (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cave of the Patriarchs WP:1RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You have reverted 2 times in less than 2 hours on a page limited by the WP:1RR rule Alatari (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Hey. I undid your recent edit because we just had an exhaustive attempted consensus process on that parenthetical on the Talk page. It raged on for days over the question of whether we should say 'Hebrew/Aramaic' or 'Aramaic/Hebrew'. Because this is such a controversial page, edits to the lead paragraph should generally go thru Talk. That's especially true when it's an edit to a sentence that has only in the past couple days been so contentious. Nothing personal: Those changes might have been unremarkable on a lower profile page. I just wanted to tell you why I reverted. Pathawi (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is basic Manual of Style that birth and death dates are parenthesized in the lede sentence following the subject. This applies to all pages regardless of profile and has nothing to do with the content you mention as undergoing “exhaustive” talk page discussion. Dates go in parentheses. Zhomron (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably no one will object. The edit splash for this page has an Attention section that asks you to go thru the Talk page. You will probably get the outcome you want that way. Pathawi (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zhomron, neither MOS:LEAD nor MOS:OPENPARABIO (the more specific guideline on this) says that dates must under all circumstances be put between parentheses. Rather, the MOS specifies that dates should usually be mentioned in the first sentence. It's common practice to do so by putting them in a parenthetical, but this is not something that is set in stone. In this case, by including the dates as well as the alternate names, the parenthetical would become overlong, rendering the opening sentence much more difficult to read. The current opening sentence was indeed crafted in part with readability in mind (see, e.g., this comment), so that should be taken into account. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing Jesse for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Who is a Jew?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conversion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yahwism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Israel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seraph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divine authority.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asherah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited August 5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 70.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for continued addition of original research despite warnings and use of edit summaries to insult editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 10:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I fail to see how the insertion of claims with appropriate (and trustworthy) citations is 'original research', nor do I see how correcting/conforming Hebrew transliterations to ISO 8859-8 (which is used across the site without issue) is original research. As for insulting editors, I can concede that calling someone a "genius" in an edit summary is a tad rude, but a 14-day ban for a singular insult seems a bit excessive. Then again, I'm not an admin, I don't know if there's some sort of mandatory minimum with this sort of thing, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Zhomron (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think this edit summary might also not be considered quite civil, either. And I might be sympathetic to your complaint about the length of the block ... had you not already been blocked before. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I haven't looked at anywhere near all of your edit summaries, but here are some recent ones:

"Feck off." "Final he is silent!!!" "So it's not transliterated, super genius" - you weren't calling him a genius, you were insulting him - I'm not clear why you are trying to deny the obvious "If you're going to restore the incorrect and awkward transliteration, the least you can do it make them correct. But no, that's too much, apparently"

As for original research, are you saying that the sources in your edit here link the Torah to Yahwism? Doug Weller talk 11:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. To be honest, I thought that was already clear. Zhomron (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, you are saying they discuss Yahwism? Doug Weller talk 18:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Yahwism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. I note that this is a recreation of content previously removed from the section for the same reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ark of the Covenant, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Given the difficulties you've had here, it's surprising to me that you'd delete text without providing any rationale for doing so. Your deletion may be perfectly valid, but I can't weigh in on that without knowing why you're doing so. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: I'm guessing you didn’t actually look at what was removed? If you did, I legitimately can’t see how you’re in favor of a random, unrelated, and poorly written section being smacked in the middle of an article. Zhomron (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your rationale, why not say so in the edit summary? I don't have an opinion beyond that you shouldn't be deleting substantial text without explanation unless it's obvious vandalism, which this isn't. DonIago (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that reading is about as easy a thing to do as putting an edit summary. If you're too stubborn to do that much, you patently shouldn't be an editor. Zhomron (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that's an attitude which will get you banned. Wikipedia is about collaboration, and anything you do that presumes you can add to someone else's workload (hey, so I didn't tell you why I did it, you should figure it out based on what I changed), is not collaboration. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More explicitly, you should be looking at every edit you make in terms of "What can I do to make the reviewers (plural) job easier?" If you take the attitude that your time is so much more important than theirs that it's not worth writing the words to justify your change, you are going to be in the perpetual trouble your talk page shows, until someone gets fed up and takes you to WP:ANI. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Solomon's Temple.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Solomon's Temple.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qliphoth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dualism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained vandalism and disruption

Information icon Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you recently removed content from God in Abrahamic religions without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at God in Abrahamic religions. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding disruptive editing and edit warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Yahweh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Achar Sva (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a single one of your edits once is not an edit war. If you shut down upon being prompted for evidence, your viewpoint is going to be disregarded. Zhomron (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BRD. When you add text and someone removes it, the next stage is to discuss it on the article's talk page - NOT to undo the removal. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit at Yahweh

Hi. On 19 October 2021, you made this edit to the above article, in which you reinserted an assertion which had previously been disputed, and which was subject to an ongoing discussion on the talk page. At the same time (and without any indication in your edit summary) you amended "is" to "resembles". I asked you to revert your edit here and here I explained why I disagreed in particular with the change of "is" to "resembles". You have not replied to these comments.

The bulk of your edit (i.e. the previously disputed part) was reverted by Achar Sva. I reverted the change of "is" to "resembles" here. You have just re-reverted with no edit summary here. Per WP:BRDD you should not do this. This is particularly concerning, because I now see you were warned against edit warring on the same article three days ago. The source cited refers to "early biblical evidence for Yahweh as a storm-and warrior-god [sic]." Please now revert the edit and, if you really feel it necessary, take it to the talk page. Havelock Jones (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to "Historicity of Muhammad"

Hello. Can you explain your reasoning as to why you keep undoing my edits to this page that involve the historicity of the Qur'an. I felt that the citations I used showed that my edits were reasonable and that there were flaws with the section as it was before I edited it. The information regarding the historicity of the Qur'an places a disproportionate amount of doubt on the use of the Qur'an as an historical source. For example, Michael Cook and Patricia Crone, two well known members of the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies, are used to argue for doubting the Qur'an as an historical source, yet neither of those two scholars hold those same views anymore (as my citations show). Crone has since died, but both of them have affirmed, more recently, that there isn't any significant level of doubt as to the Qur'an's authenticity in the historical community. Crone's online article titled "What do we actually know about Mohammed," (which can be found on OpenDemocracy.net) shows this fairly clearly as she summarizes the general state of Islamic Studies. Throughout my edits were citations that clearly showed that the general viewpoint of the Qur'an is that it is most likely authentic as to the words of Muhammad. The original writing also included few quotes of scholars discussing the general consensus on the Qur'an and instead selects individual opinions of a few scholars and uses them to portray the scholarly community as being much more divided on the issue of the historicity of the Qur'an than it really is.Renegade4dk (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Invitation

Hello, Zhomron, I am new to Wikipedia editing so I apologize for anything I have done that seems unusual, isn't following some kind of policy, or appeared inconsiderate. That truly was not my intention. You said that I, "show a complete disregard for basic formatting." That may very well be true and, again, I apologize if that is the case. I am still learning. If you have any tips for me on how to improve my editing, feel free to give them to me. I hope that you have not been too annoyed by my editing to have a civil discussion on the talk page of "Historicity of Muhammad" about both of our concerns with the article. If you have any valuable insights to give me, I am open to learning them from you and if I have done something wrong I am more than willing to acknowledge it. I did not intend to cause a fight or any negative sentiments with my editing. Thank you for your time.Renegade4dk (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Renegade4dk: No worries, and please don't take my comments as a sort of personal attack. While "complete disregard" may sound harsh - at the end of the day we were all new to the site at one point, and no one ever gets anywhere by bashing other users. Plus, having sincere dialogue is important for a collaborative project!
As for the edits you've made, your sources and intentions are well defined, it's just a matter of inserting them properly. As you had them, all they did was restate what was already said in the prior sentences. Find a better way (or place,) to integrate them, and obviously replace things that don't harmonize with your point. As for the formatting, just be sure to preview your edits before you hit publish - everybody makes the mistake of accidentally removing some format text once in a while, but if you preview your edits, you can correct these mistakes before you even really make them! Good luck. Zhomron (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips! Renegade4dk (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1rr

You've violated the 1RR at Gaza City, please self-revert. nableezy - 18:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, forgot that page was under arbitration. Zhomron (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to self-revert. nableezy - 19:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oop Zhomron (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael and Hezekiah edit:

The Nīqqud for Raphael has a Shə'wa on the Resh, not a Tsere:

https://www.sefaria.org/I_Chronicles.26.7?with=all&lang=bi

The Shə'wa on Qoph in "Ḥīz'qīyyāhū" is also silent in accordance with the Tiberian Notation from which this pronounciation comes too. It would only be vocal if it was preceded by a long Chiriq-Yodh (not a short Chiriq) or if the Qoph was marked with Daghesh. Instead it marks the end of a syllable here, not a vowel.

I do not say this in an offensive tone so do not take it as such, but a portion of your edits concerning mine seem to stem from ignorance regarding the reasons I made them from what I've seen. BlackDragonCasimir (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brush up on your Hebrew

You continue to change my edits yet can't seem to understand how Niqqudoth even work. Please tell me when has Tsērē ever been pronounced as "ə"? You have changed this in Raphael (which is vowelised with a Shə'wa pronounced as ă in Tiberian) and have yet again incorrectly transliterated the name Sandalphon. You can't seem to grasp the concept of a silent shə'wa either. You have also changed edits which had their source provided in citation.

Read up on Tiberian Hebrew too, you clearly have no understanding of it. I'd highly recommend Geoffrey Khan's books on the matter, though the page here on Wikipedia is a wonderful resource too. A peek there would even tell you how wrong you are concerning the Tiberian vocalisation. BlackDragonCasimir (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You remove my reconstruction yet create your own?

I noticed you provided the Phoenician reconstruction of King Hiram I's name without any source? Where is your source that this was ever 𐤇𐤓𐤌 Ḥirōm? BlackDragonCasimir (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackDragonCasimir: You need some time out. Use it to read WP:RS and WP:OR thoroughly. Then read them both again. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Much appreciated. Zhomron (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This provides no source for such a pronounciation either. In neither the MT or Cuneiform transliteration contemporary with the King's Time, no such pronounciation is found. The Phoenician King Hiram II of Tyre (8th Century B.C.E.) is recorded as a tributary to the Assyrian King Tiglath-Pileser III. In this record he is referred to as: 𒄭𒊒𒌝𒈬 Ḥi-ru-um-mu. Showing the root Rūm being preserved in pronounciation. Though you removed my reconstruction of Jeremiah based on actual historical comparison from similar names who's vowelisation was later changed. BlackDragonCasimir (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackDragonCasimir: Your original research is banned by website policy. Please read WP:V. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackDragonCasimir: Though tgeorgescu has already covered this, let me explain this. Hiram is from Ahiram – my brother is exalted. The word is ram, not rum. This was hypocrised to Hiram. There is evidence, primarily in Akkadian transcriptions, that in later times, Phoenician underwent a similar vowel shift to Hebrew, such that ā became ō. Thus, Hirām became Hirōm, which was then copied into Akkadian transcription as Hirûm(u). Akkadian transcriptions have been used to reconstruct a number of phonetic changes in several Semitic languages, like Egyptian, Edomite, and even Philistine. These, have sources behind them. You, on the other hand, just add an {{efn}} which copy-pastes a bunch of unrelated nonsense from God-knows-where. Your intents are noble and I appreciate your wont to improve the pages, but you are not only fundamentally mistaken on how transliteration (as well as the ISO Wikipedia uses) works, but you lack the actual understanding behind these claims. Just take a break. Zhomron (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the name's origin and meaning. There are many examples of the word Ram as Rum however, in this form with either a Waw or Yodh acting as Mater lectionis however. The two letters often being interchangeable historically. Hence why we can also see the Babylonian pronounciation of Jeremiah "Yirimyahu". I also referred to the Manuscripts from which this Babylonian Notation can be found, but that was ignored too. Here are some examples of the forms Rum and the word Yarum:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7311.htm

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/yarumu_7311.htm

My work and research actually has a reasoning behind it believe it or not.

In regards to transliteration however, I find it hilarious that you even try to say this. You can't even read the niqqudoth properly yet say I'm mistaken on transliteration. That seems the case from what I've seen anyway. I mean fair enough when it comes to disputing a reconstruction (everything else had a proper source though), but you continously reverted changes regarding the Tiberian pronounciation when you clearly have no clue about it out of your own ignorance. I referred to my sources and wrote each citation by hand from my own words. In all honesty however I have little interest in further editing, so yes I will take that break. Most of my work will be removed due to ignorance and arrogance anyway.

See ya! BlackDragonCasimir (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackDragonCasimir: My work and research actually has a reasoning behind it believe it or not. — the problem being that Wikipedia has no respect for your work, or my work, or Zhomron's work. If a full professor has not asserted it as fact, we don't need your own research. As an Wikipedian, you are valued for your ability to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES for everything you add to Wikipedia. Your own judgment or your own research won't do: they are banned by the website policy WP:NOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackDragonCasimir: My guy. It’s not my fault you can’t tell the difference between a tzere and a shwa. We have a page on each of the niqqud. Read up. Also, rām has neither a yodh or a waw. It’s just resh and mem. רם. That’s it. Zhomron (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a fool of yourself and showing your ignorance even more. This is רְ with shə'wa (Modern: ə, Tiberian: ă) and this is רֵ with tsere (ē). If you check the edit history on the page for Raphael you can clearly see that it is you who cannot tell the difference. The edit history is a clear witness to this. Perhaps you should read up on those niqqud pages yourself. You also continue to vocalise shə'wa when it should be silent in Tiberian Hebrew as can be seen in the edit history of Hezekiah. If you would even check on the page concerning the Tiberian vocalisation that is also on here, you can see the rules regarding shə'wa and it's proper pronounciation.

You should also see Psalms 46:10, 12:8, 21:13, 57:5, 57:11, 108:5, 89:13, 89:17, 89:24, 112:9, 18:46, 13:2, 27:6, 61:2, 66:7, 89:16 & 140:8, Ezekiel 10:16, Deuteronomy 17:20, Proverbs 21:4 & 11:11, 2 Samuel 22:47, Isaiah 38:18, 52:13 & 49:11 for the form רוּם.

See Isaiah 14:13 & 49:22, 40:9 & 62:10, Psalm 75:6-7, 110:7 & 113:7 among many other examples I could give yet don't currently have the time to regarding the form רִים.

You best get reading. BlackDragonCasimir (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some information regarding shə'wa in Tiberian Hebrew specifically:

https://www.tiberianhebrew.com/shewa BlackDragonCasimir (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent (symbolism)

You are correct. My mistake. Editor2020 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor2020: No worries. Zhomron (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Elhanan, son of Jaare-oregim does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.

Leaving no edit summary is problematic when you are removing large amounts of material. I saw the above example on my watchlist, reviewed it, and concluded that you were removing material that was repetitive and perhaps WP:OR, and that the citations which you had removed were of low quality. However, it would save time for other editors reviewing such deletions, if you would leave an explanation at the time.

Thanks! – Fayenatic London 13:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity in edit summaries

Please do not use it. as you did here Instead, please include an edit summary which describes your edits, following WP:ES. Thanks, GordonGlottal (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Information icon Hello, I'm GordonGlottal. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. If you remove content from a page, especially cited content, you need a reason and you need to put it in the edit summary or the talk page. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Use edit summaries to explain what you're doing and never personally attack another editor. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonGlottal: That you fail to grasp basic rules within the Hebrew language is not my problem. That you fail to use your eyes to view the content removed and prefer to simply see the bolded red number next to the edit log and a lack of edit reason is, likewise, not my problem. You have demonstrated you do not understand the ISO system which Wikipedia uses site-wide to romanize and/or transliterate Hebrew words, and it is not my responsibility to bring these things to your attention beyond the first transgressions, these are things you can reasonably be expected to learn on your own. Zhomron (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have never, despite repeated requests, explained your edits as required or pointed to the policy you say demands them. You have repeatedly removed cited content without explanation and personally attacked other editors, including with profanity. You have introduced errors into several pages without explaining your edits. These actions fall under WP:VD. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to explain the grammar to you, the place for that is the talk page. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew word for "Tradition"

Do you know the Hebrew word for "tradition"? As in the Sephardic tradition or Yemeni tradition. I think there is a Wikipedia article but can't remember it. Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor2020: Minhag has subpages for Sephardic textual tradition, at least, and also linked there is one page for Yemenite prayer custom, albeit only prayer custom. Is that what you were looking for? Zhomron (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! Thats the one. Editor2020 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Prophets in Mandaeism

Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah, Shem, Aram, and John the Baptist are revered but only Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem and John the Baptist are considered prophets in Mandaeism. Template:Mandaeism in the prophets section clearly shows this. Abel and Enos are Hibil Ziwa and Anush Uthra in Mandaeism and are uthras meaning angels or guardians, but not prophets. Aram is an ancestor for Mandaeans and is revered since he is Shem's son, but he is not considered a prophet. Hope this clears things up. Mcvti (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of pharaohs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pepi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenician vocalizations

I think it’s cool that you’re attempting to vocalize Phoenician inscriptions, but original research doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. Because such reconstructions are always hypothetical, it’s better to stick to a transliteration of the consonantal text as it appears in the inscription. I’m also not sure how you’re arriving at your vocalizations. You seem to be directly lifting from transliterations of arbitrarily selected Tiberian Hebrew forms more often than not, and others just seem like guesses. With regards to the Ahiram sarcophagus, note that the spelling of 3ms perfect verbs such as ʿly with final -y is usually taken as evidence that word-final short vowels were preserved in Old Byblian. This would also imply a retention of case vowels on nouns, perhaps with the exception of bound forms. A plausible reconstruction would look something like:

ʾarōnu zū paʿala ʾittubaʿlu bin ʾaḥīramu milk gubla li-ʾaḥīrami ʾabīhū ka-šatihū bi-ʿōlami
wa-ʾillū milku bi-milakīma wa-sōkinu bi-sōkinīma wa-tōmiʾ maḥnūti ʿalaya
gubla wa-yiglē ʾarōna zīna tiḥtasip ḥuṭr mišpaṭihū tihtapik
kissiʾ mulkihū wa-nūḥatu tibraḥ ʿalē gubla wa-hūʾa yamḥē siprahū [ . . . ]

I won't go over the entire Pyrgi Tablets, but here are a few corrections:

li-rabbāt li-ʿaštart not lerabat līʿAštart
ʾašār qadōš ʾazū ʾiš pāʿal not ʿašer qadōš ʾeze, ʾeš pōʿal
bi-yarḥ zabḥ šamš not bīyīraḥ Zībōḥ Šamš
šanōt kamō hakkōkabīm not šant kem hakokūbīm
bi-yōm qabr ʾilīm not bīyōm qabr ʿīlēm

I’d stress that even if we can identify the etymologically correct forms, the vocalization is still entirely hypothetical. It’s possible, for instance, that ō and ā would have been realized as ū and ō in the dialect underlying the Pyrgi Tablets, as they were in later Punic. Anyways, you should probably acquaint yourself with the literature and work on gaining a better understanding of Semitic historical linguistics before attempting to do something like this yourself. I’d recommend checking out Holger Gzella’s work on Phoenician. Rhemmiel (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhemmiel: Yeah I'll admit the Pyrgi page I was just completely out of it and for some reason I didn't just remove myself from the situation. Thanks. Zhomron (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhomron: We’ve all been there. Good luck in your studies. Rhemmiel (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usur vs. uṣṣur

Hi. I don't dispute your linguistic knowledge but I think we need another source than the one currently used at Belshazzar if we're going with uṣṣur rather than usur. There is also no going around that usur is more common in WP:RS. This also has broader implications since I assume this holds for other figures like Nebuchadnezzar II as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is ṣ vs. s. With that said the doubling of the fricative seems to be... vague. Some sources do it, others don't - and likely because most sources simply transliterate the individual signs which comprise the word, as opposed to attempting to replicate the vocalized pronunciation of the terms, i.e. think Sennacherib being glossed as Sîn-ahhī-erība instead of Zu.en-ah-eri-ba, yet both being technically correct. I'll look for some more sources. Zhomron (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From personal experience while writing Mesopotamian articles I've seen both usur and uṣur but I can't recall seeing uṣṣur. In any case I think we should go with the most common transliteration (whichever that ends up being) and that it's applied consistently. Let me know if you find more sources. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion -- grammatically it should be spelled with one ṣ. My guess is some use two just to match up with the BH spelling. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: re your attitude

In the past few months, along with many constructive edits, you've introduced errors into Hallelujah, into Kol Nidre, into Hazael, into Jeroboam, into Belshazzar, into Chedorlaomer, into Athaliah, and more. I and other editors have spent a lot of time trying to explain to you the various rules of which you were ignorant (schwa between two of the same letter, qre/ktiv, schwa following a short vowel, etc.). What bothers me is that your confidence has never faltered. You've never realized that you aren't actually an expert, that your amateurism means you will occasionally make mistakes and be corrected, and that when I revert you, it isn't because I'm on a personal crusade. Keep an open mind and you can learn a lot on here (I have). If a more knowledgeable editor reverts you and you don't understand their summary, try tagging them on the talk page and asking for a more detailed explanation. You won't (and shouldn't want to) win by force. I and many other editors have told you this before. I hope you keep editing boldly. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response concerning Rʻuth-Assor

Hi. As I've said many times before I do not doubt that you are knowledgeable about ancient languages and I respect the work you put in. This being said, I think this edit summary was unnecessarily rude ("all you need to do is look at the actual name", "it's using eyes"). Only a small amount of people are proficient in a language as specific as ancient Hatran Aramaic. Also re "all you need is a font", most people won't have an extra font installed and it will just look like a bunch of boxes, why have both the text and an image when the image does the trick?

I also think your persistent edits introducing uncited names to various articles, something this talk page attests to having been brought up against you several times, is not really in-line with Wikipedia policy. The names you add may well be correct but given that most Wikipedia editors are not proficient in these ancient languages they are impossible to verify. Taking Rʻuth-Assor as an example, Aggoula (1985) is an academic source which gives the rendition rḥt’sr. You claiming this is wrong and adding r‘wt’sr needs a source that confirms that transliteration - the source you added does not (it includes the Aramaic characters and the page cited renders the name as the full Rʻūṯ’assor). This is WP:OR because you've either added your own reading of the Aramaic characters or your own shortened version of Rʻūṯ’assor. Consequently, I have reverted you again. I respect your knowledge of the subject but I trust an academic source over you saying that it's wrong and I am not interested in edit-warring concerning this - if this persists I will raise this issue and the past issues at WP:ANI for arbitration. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to this: what is your source for this? The unicode version of Akkadian also uses archaic cuneiform signs that would not have been in use during Arda-Mulissu's lifetime, which is the reason why a lot of the articles use image files instead of text for the cuneiform renditions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: 694-VII-12/ADD 0201/SAAO/SAA06 103; line 4. Zhomron (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhomron: Yes, but this only gives the signs (not how they looked like). These signs would not have been written in this way 𒀴𒊩𒌆𒆤 in Arda-Mulissu's time. The addition should also have been sourced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Yahwism - transition from Yahwism to 2nd temple Judaism

Zhomron,I'm sorry that I keep reverting your attempts to add information on this, but it's simply from concern for a good article, not because I'm innately hostile. I started a section on the Talk page but so far you haven't responded. Let's have a discussion, and draw in other editors.Achar Sva (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Achar Sva: I appreciate your concern – and don't worry, I never for a second believed there was any kind of ulterior motive behind your edits. I hadn't even noticed the undos or the talk page, if you give me a little while I'll jump on and we can have that discussion. Thanks for your courtesies. Zhomron (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hanunu

Hello Zhomron, I just wanted to let you know concerning Hanunu that you can't use AD/BC and CE/BCE together in an article per WP:BCE. The era-style must be consistent within an article. I would recommend CE/BCE since the subject predates the existence of Christianity. Also, could you add a citation to the final paragraph. Thank you, cheers! Jerm (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zhomron&oldid=1077942077"