User talk:Coretheapple/Archive11

regarding recent edit dispute
Greetings. My apologies, but the reason that I'm writing here on your talk page is because the discussion on the notice board was closed before I got a chance to respond, due to the Admin's decision and action (that you had a bit of a disagreement with). Forgive this lengthy comment here, but I needed to thoroughly state some things, on this matter.

Anyway, thanks for your consideration and concern to this matter from yesterday. I want to say that I do apologize for going a bit past the 3RR rule myself (though Jytdog went further beyond as you can see), and also my occasional somewhat battle-ish tone, or maybe sometimes over-bluntness.

And I do appreciate that later the editor Jytdog made an excellent modification, and found an agreeably better and more solid source for my section and paragraph. If he had done that to begin with, I swear I would NOT have undone it or fought it, as I respect people’s meaningful modifications, adjustments, or better source referencing. You see though that that’s not what he did at first, nor later on even. But only after he went beyond 3RR and for some reason afterwards he went to the noticeboard where he didn’t think that he’d be reprimanded or would get in trouble or have 1-day block himself. But after I wrote my defense on here, he did see (is my surmise) that he broke 3RR badly, and was gonna be in hot soup as well as myself. We both edit-warred, obviously, with 3RR violation, though he a bit worse, and yes I a bit worse with a more combative tone (though not every statement of mine). But I was rightly and understandably both hurt and annoyed, at what was disrespectful and overly hasty, and it came across as "Own" and "I don't like", rather than totally valid reasons to completely delete. Yes, admittedly the source I put in was not the best, or the most reliable, in WP policy, but I hope you can see that WP policy is not necessarily to wholesale remove everything just because the source used is not the most reliable by WP standards.

There are plenty of other sources, more solid, for the drift of my addition. (And Jytdog, to his credit, did a good job later on in finding and placing one, and modifying etc.)    But before that was the problem, where he totally removed hard work, that a very good-faith (and accurate and copiously sourced) contribution, and hard work, were just summarily dissed and dismissed by him, simply because the source that I put was not the best, but he wrongly accused or said that it was just “original research”. That is patently not true. I did not come up with the Jesus using Lot’s wife to warn against clinging to material possessions at the end of a world thing. That’s obvious from the Biblical text itself, AND ALSO FROM VARIOUS OUTSIDE SOURCES. Yes, I may not have picked the best source (admittedly), but it seems to be forgotten that WP policy and strong recommendation is to NOT destroy another contributor’s edits because of that, completely, but to try to find a better source, or give a source TAG, or modify the edits or additions. Not totally remove or eliminate. And sorry, I had a very valid point with that. '

And as I said, it was arguably very needed, and sorely lacking, the thing that was only slightly briefly mentioned in the lede. Needing elaboration, as NO "New Testament" reference in the body of article regarding "Lot's wife" was present anywhere.

Now, as far as another thing that’s been said by both Jytdog and you Coretheapple etc, that is actually a misunderstanding, and NOT what I did, regarding “pointy” about the name of God matter. No, that’s not what I meant. The edit itself (in that small matter of putting the Anglicized form “Jehovah” instead of what was there “God”) was to NOT “make a point” but for valid varying and clarity, in the Jewish context, of the God of Jews, and elaboration etc. When I said “my point” that was only in my comment on the TALK page, in response to Jytdog’s objection that that form “Jehovah” (the tri-syllabic English Latin form) is somehow not used by “scholarly sources” even though it clearly is, past and present...in various reputable works, by various scholars and theologians...though maybe not as much as the less-accurate two-syllable form “Yahweh”. When I said “it was not that big a deal to me” I meant if consensus (which is what Jytdog was later calling for on that specific matter) went against having that form there in that specific place. I would not fight against that so much, because it’s overall minor...though my EDIT on the actual article was NOT “pointy” but simply clarity and varying and elaboration. The edit itself was not meant as “to make a point”, but rather my comment to Jytdog on the talk page about “scholarly sources” and that the motive to remove that form was not really warranted given the fact that it’s a long-established form and found in a number of scholarly books, sermons, and references, as well as in a number of reputable Bible versions. THAT was my “point” about “point”. Not the actual original edit itself in the article. That was just for clarity in context.

Anyway, as I said, I do appreciate your thought to all this, though I do not think it was all that necessary for Jytdog to even go on the board to report me, since he was (though unintentionally) also ipso facto reporting himself. But his subsequent modification and compromise and collaboration and better source that he found I do appreciate and have no problem with. It’s cool. I appreciate also Jytdog’s diligence for good sourcing on Wikipedia, though I don’t agree that he handled it originally in the best way or in line really with WP recommendation or policy. And that was my argument with all of that. Anyway, sorry for the long presentation here. I appreciate your taking the time to read through it. I felt it was necessary (since I was not able to all day yesterday) to further state my case and maybe clarify a misunderstanding or two. thanks again. Regards. Namarly (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, glad everything's straightened out. Be well. Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Albert Cashier
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Albert Cashier. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Mail
I believe in recycling! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timothy Winter
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timothy Winter. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's neat. Thanks, Gerda. Coretheapple (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ibn Tumart
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ibn Tumart. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lee Grant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lee Grant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kristen Stewart
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kristen Stewart. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)