User talk:יבריב

Welcome!
Hello, יבריב, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Samaritanism‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Samaritanism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I gave you four sources, all of which supported the info which they were used to cite. I don't understand why you are so intent on deeming whatever source I bring you as insufficient, when in fact the sources I choose are more than sufficient for the info they are used in conjunction with for this very reason. A total of eight sources have been used to cite what you have continuously deleted, and just one of those eight sources would've been enough to support the text. BURDEN is not on me as I have sufficiently cited my info. יבריב (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things -the actual content, needs actual sources. You cannot post refs at the beginning and then write a bunch of content needs to summarize reliable sources that are cited.
 * I will comment on sources on the talk page. Please see there. 03:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

File:IsoGerizim.jpeg
This is by no means a simple geometric shape ineligible for copyright - a schema depicting a reconstructed shape of an ancient building certainly is a creative work. At best, it could fall under fair use, though even that is doubtful. Unless the file is relicensed, I will likely nominate it for deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Samaritanism. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Samaritanism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, I used the talk and provided more sources, but you didn't even bat an eye or even attempt to do so, so you clearly don't give a shit either way. Really don't care at this point, it's your hangup, not mine. יבריב (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Samaritanism
You've been warned as the result of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. If you revert this article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page you may be blocked. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use edit summaries for snarking at other users
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Your recent editing history at Aphthous stomatitis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

What? anthropomorphic Yep.
Deuteronomy 23:12-14. 12 “You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it. 13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement. 14 Because the Lord your God WALKS IN THE MIDST of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you." [Yahweh does not want to step in the poo poo.] You must have missed this in your reading. I think a lot of people do. You can put "anthromorphic" back now. Let's keep this honest this time. No favorite preferences. Never mind. I replaced and referenced it properly. Miistermagico (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No. 'Anthropomorphic' implies we are given human qualities to something non-human. For example, while Kek is a god and thus non-physical or whatever, his form is a frog with human appearance, thus he is anthropomorphic. Yahweh doesn't have a specified appearance, let alone form, how can we say he's anthropomorphic? If he were a talking log, he'd be anthropomorphic. Yahweh isn't anthropomorphic. Having feet to step in poop doesn't make you anthropomorphic. יבריב (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, יבריב, Merriam-Webster lists two definitions of the word "anthropomorphic" . The first definition is "described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes". The second definition is "ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things". The definition you are thinking of is the second one. The definition I have been using (which I think is the same one is using) is the first. Also, the early Hebrews did consider Yahweh to have a physical body (as is evidenced by the passages in the earlier parts of the Hebrew Bible that describe him as such). The concept of God as an all-encompassing, incorporeal being was a development of the Second Temple period. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a bad point. Do we have a source that actually says that regarding the early Hebrews? B/c that would be a great start. יבריב (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already listed several scholarly sources discussing the issue at Talk:Yahweh. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear User talk:יבריב, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anthropomorphism Each of us tend to weave narratives that please ourselves. What ever pleases you tickles me to death. Good luck to you. Miistermagico (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Yahweh into Draft:Yahwism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Yahwism. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should: Thank you. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
 * Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
 * Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
 * Only add a " red link " if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
 * Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
 * Do not insert external links or references

Belshazzar
Sorry to have upset you with my edits to Belshazzar (and a bit puzzled why you invoke the name of the Messiah - I thought you were Jewish). Anyway, please let's discuss on Talk if you find it truly disturbing. PiCo (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I came across as a bit too harsh. I was just moody. יבריב (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought more shocked than harsh :) PiCo (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Second Temple before Herod picture
Hello. Unfortunately this image you added was deleted from commons. It would be great to have in that article a picture of the original Second Temple before Herod's renovation. Could you upload the image to commons with better attributions, a different permission or something? Or maybe another depiction? Thanks--Gatnaldir (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Patach katan?
I'm utterly confused at. What are you talking about? Are you thinking of kamatz katan? Alephb (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh my God yes I am. Wow, this is embarrassing. יבריב (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Can I take that response to mean that you won't mind if I clean up the "patah = o" edits you've scattered all over the place? Of course, there's no doubt we have other outstanding differences about transliteration, but at least reaching an agreements on patahs would be a good start. Alephb (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Given your continued edits to transliterations, it might be a good idea to look over the Wikipedia policy that covers these sorts of things: MOS:HE. Alephb (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Clutter
Please stop cluttering the first sentences of articles. Please read this and the links from there. Clutter makes it hard for mobile readers to access the actual content. More than half our readers are on mobile devices. Please take this seriously. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Um...how exactly am I cluterring anything? Thusfar all I've done is add transliterations. יבריב (talk)
 * They are clutter. People add transliterations, alternative names, etc etc etc and pretty soon the first fifteen words of an article are pure clutter with zero content. This kind of garbage drove the WMF to subvert all of WP and start driving content from Wikidata into every single article in Wikipedia. There is no way in hell you read the link I provided.  Please read it Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It would probably also be a good idea to give MOS:HE another careful reading. In particular, read what it says about shvas. When you do something weird like call Moses' sister, Mireyam, you're producing a weird kind of transliteration that simply doesn't exist in normal reliable sources, and is utterly foreign to MOS:HE. Alephb (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Zalishchyky, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Kamatz Troubles, Again
Things like are why I keep trying to get you to read WP:HEBREW. The guidelines are very clear that kamatz is either an o or an a, depending on the situation. And yes, the kamatz yud in Abigayil does sound a lot like the English vowel in "bite." But there's more to the issue than that. In fact MOS:HE does address an example of how to transliterate another word that has a kamatz, followed by a yud, followed by a hiriq. That word is Yerushalayim. Notice the ayi. Please, read the policy guideline before you keep messing with transliterations. Alephb (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

File:IsoGerizim.jpeg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IsoGerizim.jpeg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Im The IP (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)   Im The IP  (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

File:RomanGerizimcoin.jpeg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RomanGerizimcoin.jpeg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)