User talk:In ictu oculi/Archive 2011

Lyman Jewett
userfy the page or email a copy to you. Feezo (Talk) 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Automatically generated. Glitsched page creation, fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

La Passione di Gesù Cristo
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of La Passione di Gesù Cristo, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://infinitybody.com/kolya/La-passione.html. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a bot glitsch, the link appears to be from some sort of site that sucks up word searches and images, and does (in the sucked up material) briefly include a sentence mentioning the oratorio, but apart the link bears no resemblance to the content in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Basque Society of Friends of the Country
Thanks you for your corrections ;) If I can, and my horrible english lets me, I will try to extend it and create others. P.D: I think that the correct name of a member of the RSBAP is "friend" Museomed (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Table of terms
I've drawn up a table of terms at Talk:Christian mortalism. Please take a look and comment. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Biblical categories
I notice you've created a bunch of categories such as "Dutch Biblical scholars". This is a great category to have, but please note that according to WP:MOSCAPS, "The adjective biblical should not be capitalized." StAnselm (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This should have been added at Category talk:Biblical scholars. Yes, maybe so, but I followed existing examples for American Biblical scholars (18 P), British Biblical scholars, German Biblical scholars, Israeli Biblical scholars (4 P) Jewish Biblical scholars (1 C, 48 P). If you want to change them be my guest. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Chapel Royal
Hi, your entry for Spain has grown. Your article on the Flemish Chapel has been used as a source. I now have some questions. In the Flemish Chapel article it is not clear whether the group of people concerned lived in Spain or the Spanish Netherlands. Both, in different periods? If the Flemish Chapel ultimately merged with the main Spanish Chapel Royal, when/where did that occur? Should the Flemish Chapel article be renamed Spanish Royal Chapel with a separate section on the Flemish Chapel? None of this is important to me (meaning after leaving you this note I will do no more about it) but it would be good if you could run your knowledgeable eye over the amended Spain section under Chapel Royal. Many thanks. Eddaido (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Burton H. Throckmorton Jr.
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Burton H. Throckmorton Jr., and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.bts.edu/newsandevents/news2009/throckmorton.htm. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a similarity, because the BTS edu and a few words in the article both source from an obituary in the Bangor Daily News. I will fix the similarity. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Triumphs of Oriana (1899)
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Triumphs of Oriana (1899), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.toccataclassics.com/cddetail.php?CN=TOCC0012. VWBot (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly surprising that the bot would pick up the only recording of the 1899 collection. The libretto of which is given as a link. But the historical source used is Jeffrey Richards Imperialism and music: Britain, 1876-1953 2001 p359 In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

John Williams (of Sayingpan)
I have deleted this, which you tagged db-r3. That left a deadlink from John Williams (disambiguation). It didn't seem to me that there was enough about JW of S in the renamed article to justify redirecting to that, so I have removed the entry from the John Williams DAB page, but I'm letting you know in case you want to restore it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ThanksIn ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

John Wesley Hanson
A tag has been placed on John Wesley Hanson Criteria for speedy deletion (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a person. Criteria for speedy deletion (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Article expanded.In ictu oculi (talk)

Thomas Whittemore
A tag has been placed on Thomas Whittemore (Universalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Staffwaterboy Critique Me 03:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Article expanded.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfection
I do not have an objection to the move, but it would be good to expand it a little at some point. The only other item there that needs help is 3 fold office. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew
You have removed this link, Hebrew Gospel, from the second paragraph of the Gospel of Matthew intro several times without explanation. The inline citation clearly mentions the Hebrew Gospel, so this link should stay in the paragraph per WP:PRESERVE. The link will be once again returned to the article, and I ask that before you remove it again, please first discuss it on the Talk page of the article. &mdash; Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  12:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See talk. Explanation was given in line, the link is duplication / misnoma. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We agreed not to edit for a time
Ictu, please respond at the Gospel of the Hebrews talk page immediately. Thank you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done so. Please remove POV and OR content or provide modern academic citations or allow other (majority/mainstream) views.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

removal of Gesenius Hebrew dictionary links
Okay, looking for a better online dictionary. See Talk:Lilith In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look
I took a quick look at the other three Jewish-Christian articles - man, what a mess. Frankly, I would avoid working on the Jewish-Christian Gospels article until the other three articles are stable. It was always intended to be a gateway article to topics related to the Jewish-Christian Gospels. Once the individual articles are up to encyclopedic quality, it should just be a matter of going back to the J-C Gospel article and writing up a brief synopsis for each one. Likewise, I would leave the GH aside for now, until the GN is a bit more stable. The two should be considered together because there is a disputed relationship between the two gospels.

I read through the GN article and I'm not convinced that Schneemelcher's references are the best way to go, even though I know that is your preference. I would set aside all references from the margin of Matthew attributed to the Judaicon for now, and come back to these later in the process, in this or a separate article. Despite some scholarly wishful thinking, there is no proof that GN = Judaicon. That is an unprovable assumption that should be introduced as such.

I would be inclined to start with quotations from Jerome that are "safe" - undisputed by several reliable secondary sources as being from the "Hebrew Gospel that the Nazoraeans used". If it were me, I would lay them out on your talk page or the article talk page by the primary source they came from and by the year Jerome published the letter or homily. This constitutes the "core" of the GN.

Next, I would layer in the quotations made by Jerome that are "disputed", i.e., some or all authors may attribute them to the GH. Again, I would lay them out by primary source and by year. What I suspect may be going on here is what I call "Jerome's criterion of theological embarrassment", which affected not only him but modern scholars/theologians. The criterion is simple, if the quotation is not controversial relative to Nicene Orthodoxy, it's GN, otherwise it's GH. These should be considered in a separate section that overlaps with the GH article.

Next, I would layer in quotations made by Church Fathers in the middle ages attributed explicitly to the "Gospel of the Nazoraeans" (something Jerome never did), as their own section. And finally, I would return to the marginal quotations from the Judaicon, which are also from the middle ages, either in this or a separate article.

Well, that's probably enough free advice for what it's worth. Good luck. I may be taking a Wiki-break for awhile (assuming I survive arbitration, otherwise it may be a considerably longer break). :0) Ovadyah (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks Ovadyah. My preference for using the standard edition is simply that, agree with it or not, it's the standard around which all SBS type works reference these texts, and that makes the articles user-friendly for any Wikipedians who use general texts. Also if not the Schneemelcher edition, I wonder what other edition would be used? I agree with you that J-G is a gateway. Ideally what would be good would be a user friendly "here's the standard view, the standard edition" 10%, and then the other 90% can be under any pref that happens along. Cheers!In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the Jewish-Christian Gospels and what a mess. At least we are in agreement there. Also no consensus. Lets work together to get rid of the POV pushing. Cheers - 23:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Ret.Prof (talk)
 * ? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also > See Canvassing Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Make Use of Discussion Sections.
Hello. You have been performing changes to the Article about the Holy Spirit.

Use the discussion section about the article here before attempting any further changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.111.128 (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anon user welcomed and encouraged to register.In ictu oculi (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User. Use Discussion sections First! Do not change topics. Do not Attempt any further deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.111.128 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding edits
Hello. I appreciate your concern, and communicating your points to me. By the way, I think your intro for the Holy Spirit article was very good. There obviously was too much POV in the lead, and the article in general, to be honest. The POV pushers need to be careful.

But I'm a little confused. Because my edits were NOT "reverts" at all. But just simple modifications and just general edits and fixes of punctuation mostly. And I'm not sure about the "interrupts" thing. I simply saw unwarranted upper case letterings, etc, and fixed them. Also I elaborated on the Judaism Hebrew Scripture reference matter.Art and Muscle (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Yahweh (Canaanite deity)
No, it never did get AfD'd.

dab and I both took a block for disagreeing over what should redirect where (this section) and the next on my talk page), after which I didn't want to go anywhere near clashing with him if I could help it. Also, I wanted to wait to see how things would pan out at the Yahweh article -- whether there would be a discussion there, whether it would stabilise, etc.  So I didn't go any further than just the initial shot across the bows on the talk page.  Jheald (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Risto Savin


A tag has been placed on Risto Savin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Takeo™  16:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I was delighted about the Hänssler and Festwochen addition, + Jacobs and Pressler. Meeting Pressler at the RMF last summer was like meeting legend, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rheingau Musik Festival? I cannot believe you're going through the whole BWV adding Hänssler.. wow :O. I also did Carus-Verlag and Christophorus Records but less to say. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy Spirit
Hi, Someone reverted your changes, and I have asked them to hold off until you respond on Talk:Holy_Spirit_(Christianity). So your comments will be appreciated. The IP does have some valid points, but I think your input would help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

GAC article nomination instructions
Here are the nomination instructions: WP:GAC. Keep in mind that after you submit an article for nomination, a new page will be created (just like the one for peer review), and there will be a time period when reviewers can leave comments on what further improvements may be necessary to bring the article up to WP:GA quality. While anyone is free to leave a comment in theory, most of these editors are pros or semi-pros that know what they are doing. Once the comment period ends, the involved editors (which would be you as the nominator and any other editors that are willing to do the work) have a finite period of time to make the suggested improvements. Otherwise, the article will fail GAC. These are suggestions not commands, but I think best efforts should be made to take them seriously. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see it popped up on the list, so we are good to go. There is quite a large backlog of articles to review, but only three on topics related to religion, so the wait may not be too long.  Ovadyah (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed AfD
Please note that John Carter, despite a complete lack of engagement on the matter, has raised an AfD on the demerged content / Ebionite Jewish Community, which is consequently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to offer comments at Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination).-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew: commentaries
A question: What would you name as the five most important recent commentaries on Matthew? PiCo (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Word, ICC (France on Matthew), Eerdmann's, Sacra Pagina (Harrington on Matthew), NICNT, Anchor, Blacks, NIGTC are all good modern reliable mainstream series.In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeremiah (Bulgarian priest)
Hi and thanks for starting the article! I'm currently adding some bits to it using Bulgarian sources. It seems that some authors do identify Jeremiah with Bogomil, but there are conflicting opinions in the various sources. Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 19:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting Bogomil as well. It would be even more difficult to write than Jeremiah, as there's basically no biographical info about Bogomil. Understandably because of his importance, there's a vast amount of theories. I'll see if I can properly expand it tomorrow. Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 19:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please no Ebionites/James Tabor related material on this Talk Page, thanks :)
I've reverted your latest additions. Maccoby is not the only writer who, for example, holds that the Ebionites were faithful to Jesus's original message. Eisenman, Tabor, Schonfield and Butz spring to mind. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 17:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for your work on Ghetto Swingers and Martin Roman. The musical life in Theresienstadt is an interesting and sad part of music history. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, was interesting for me too to do those articles.
 * Hi, I can't find the date online and in my library. I'll try to find out more tomorrow. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ..I think there's a decent chance to find the date in the works Milan Kuna (Czech specialist on culture in Theresienstadt), his books are detailed and reliable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have bad news for you, In ictu oculi. I searched through this book:



(the most comprehensive source describing activities of Czech/Jewish musicians in Nazi prisons, as far as I know). Vogel is mentioned on several occasions, however, his life dates are missing. I'm sorry. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Canonical Gospels
Sorry to be late in getting back to you. Yes, I'll definitely look over that. I've been busy and it may take a day or two. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Hi! Thank you very much for the barnstar and your kind words. It's quite easy to correct typos with AWB; I just load the pages and let the machine do its job and then save the changes. You certainly don't need to feel embarrassed, everybody makes mistakes :-). --Iohannes Animosus (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unitarianism
See Talk:Unitarianism--Donbodo (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories
Koavf, thank you for your energies - but you need to speak to an Admin about Wikipedia category policy, I can't help here. Please don't leave more messages. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

New article talk pages
Hi, I stumbled on a bunch of new stubs that you created for opera singers who died in the Holocaust. The bot which used to notify Wikiproject Opera of new articles has been out of commission since March and many articles are slipping under the radar. Could you do me a favour and add WikiProject Opera to the talk page of any new opera-related articles you create? You don't have to assess them, in fact it's better to leave them unassessed so we'll know they're new and need looking at. Any new articles about classical composers in general need Composers on their talk page. All other classical music articles, e.g. musicians, compositions, orchestras, ensembles, etc. take Classical. Best. Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Opera singers who died in the Holocaust
Category:Opera singers who died in the Holocaust, which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Making article changes that affect an ongoing mediation
If you are going to make major changes to the James vs. Paul section of the Ebionites article, you should join the mediation process. There's not much point in mediating a solution over disputed content when the entire content is being rewritten by outside editors. Ovadyah (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed you reworded the content we have been working on in mediation, rendering two months of laying out arguments and discussing them practically useless. Therefore, when the mediation ends and arbitration reconvenes, I'm going to request that you be added to the arbitration as an involved party.  Ovadyah (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Individual animals
As a user who participated in Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 12, you may be interested in a discussion related to this at Category talk:Individual animals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hermann Schramm
This bot needs fine tuning :) CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Angel Lailah
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Angel Lailah, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Schwartz_Lailah.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This time Corenbot is right.. this is spam I unwittingly moved out of Malakh to a new stub. I'll delete it.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Seckel Isaac Fraenkel or Frankel?
You've used one spelling for article title, one for text - don't forget to add a redirect from any alternative spellings to make sure that readers can find the article and to reduce the chance of a duplicate being created later. (I've done so now) Thanks. PamD (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bible translations into Polish
Thanks for starting this article, it was on my to do list for a while. Please don't hesitate to nominate your work for front page exposure at T:TDYK; I've done so for this article. Please also consider including more inline references and images (you can find those on pl wikipedia for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bible translations into Polish
Hello! Your submission of Bible translations into Polish at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Qrsdogg (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sefire treaty inscriptions
There already exists the article Sefire - I assume that these articles refer to the same inscriptions and could be merged. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gospel of the Ebionites
The article Gospel of the Ebionites you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article passed GA. I thought you'd like to know.  Cheers.  Ovadyah (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bible translations into Polish
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment moved
I hope you don't mind, I think you entered a comment in the wrong section by accident. I moved it to the section above, immediately under the comment by Avi it was responding to. If I did this in error, please accept my apologies and revert. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Gladstone Porteous
Hi In ictu oculi. Congratulations on your work on the biography of Gladstone Porteous, a missionary whose life has fascinated me for years. If you hadn't begun this article, I would have eventually gotten around to it. Perhaps I may have some bits to add, so I look forward to hopefully collaborating with you. As you will see, my interests range from biographies of churchmen and clergy from the eighteenth century onwards, along with members of the Porteous family (I'll leave you to work out why), so this would seem quite appropriate! Regards, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am beginning to work through this, starting with the details (such as we have) of his family. I have a fair amount of other material which I will add gradually over the next few days. Best wishes, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Bible translations into Latin"
A page you created, Bible translations into Latin, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is very short and provides little or no context.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. N o f o rmation Talk  05:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection... Not yet, sorry.
I'd keep putting on uw-unsourced warnings until he gets to a level 4 and report him, but the edits are spread out enough that that won't work... However, the editor is trying to improve the reference, and has gotten far enough that he does deserve some explanation. But, in trying to find the source he is using, I instead found this book which points out that the Yeshu Toledeth is of no use for serious research except for the history of antichristian polemics. Indeed, I can't seem to locate any texts which discuss Salome Alexandra's role in the Yeshu Toledot. Of the search result for "Salome Alexandra Yeshu Toledot", the first book mentions the Yeshu Toledot, the latter Salome Alexandra, but neither both. While I'm assuming good faith and assuming that Goldstein's "Jesus in the Jewish Tradition" does discuss this, it appears to be a now-rejected anomaly in scholarship. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Ian, the book you need is Jesus in the Jewish Tradition by Morris Goldenstein. I have read a lot of Bruce's works and he is a great Christian scholar, but he is simply not familiar enough with the Jewish sources he attempts to handle to understand exactly what he is talking about. It may "appear to be now-rejected" based upon what you have read, but appearances can be deceiving. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, now you are accusing me of vandalism? Where and how, please show me the EXACT edit you interpret as vandalism? 81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Notzrim In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And if anyone is guilty of fringe it is you.81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Van Voorst, Neusner etc are not fringe sources. As per Talk:Notzrim you need to present sources other than a medieval rabbinical document for your ideas. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about there not being more OR reverters in Notzrim. My guess would be that Lilith draws in mythology editors or religion editors or pop culture editors, where Notzrim really only draws in editors that qualify as both religion and history editors. I will add it to my watchlist, though. Looking over his changes, yeah, he's giving undue weight. I have found an online copy of the Talmudic tract in question, but the most we can do is mention that the section discusses a Yeshu-ha Notzri but that it is unclear if this is Jesus. Looking further, it appears the IP may be committing a copyright violation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI
I should point out that there's a relevant post on the ANI: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Best, Meph talk 14:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the ANI is stale, you could try providing a more complete description of the issues at WP:DISPUTE, otherwise I'm not sure what to suggest. Good luck, Meph talk 01:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Failing that, try WP:RFC. Meph talk 11:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Jewish Christian workgroup
We are facing here one of the most frequently encountered problems here in wikipedia. Kirill Lokshin, toward whose statue I metaphorically bow every day, is a very respected editor who said some time ago that the tendency around here is for work groups or WikiProjects to start with all sorts of sound and fury, valiantly starting the development of pretty much all the articles that they think should be included. Then, once the majority of the articles are better than stubs, the enthusiasm and activity starting fading. I have every reason to believe that the early Christian content in general pretty much follows this pattern.

There is a serious problem regarding early Christianity, one which another person I hold in deep respect, PastorDavid, pointed out some time ago. That is the generally poor state of development of most of the early Christian content. Unfortunately, given the disagreements between the Catholics and Orthodox, the Reformation churches, the Restorationist churches, and, actually, pretty much everybody on the planet today about this subject, there have, apparently, been very serious questions about what theories regarding these subjects should be discussed in articles, and to what extent in the articles. This also includes those individuals and academics who say Jesus may not have ever existed, and that the whole thing is some sort of really successful conspiracy theory.

So far as I can tell, and this is, clearly, just a personal opinion, the best way I can think to proceed regarding this matter is for some of the involved editors to find and locate some of the most highly regarded recent tertiary reference sources and see what they say about the subjects. At the very least, if they are regarded as themselves being basically neutral, I would think the majority of the content in our articles should probably reflect the compendium of information from the most recent and most highly regarded of these sources, with, maybe, some additional material regarding the less highly regarded "fringey" opinions and/or the opinions of individual groups who have their own specific opinions regarding some of these topics.

On some of these articles, like those about specific terms, this might not be enough, because there may not exist that many articles specifically about those terms to use as frameworks. Regarding the Notzrim, I am going to later today check over the usage of the term in the articles in the various databanks I have access to. If you want, I could forward to you, and maybe others, the material I find. It will be of course probably impossible for me to be able to prove that I have not maliciously and lazily overlooked some of the material I don't like, because it is impossible to prove a negative, but at least then those involved would have at least some basic idea as to at least some of the recent reliably sourced information on the subject.

Man, I do blather on, don't I? Sorry about the length here. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, that all seems common sense. And as you say this is a subset of early Christianity articles generally. But for some reason "Jewish Christianity" (misnoma?) seems to attract a higher rate/noise of POV/OR than dusty "patristic Christianity." No one gets too excited over Clement of Rome, for example. Yet anywhere where Tabor/Messianics/Yahwehists/Essenes/Gnostics-Kabbala-Enoch/etc. are involved the POV/OR/noise racks up exponentially. And SBL level sources get outnumbered with blogs. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Jewish Christians may well be a bit of a misnomer, and it has certainly been challenged in recent years in the scholarly literature. That probably should be discussed at fair length in that article. And, FWIW, as a strictly personal opinion, the Messianic Jews are a comparatively new "trend" in religion. Generally, when such newer groups get significant attention, splinter groups tend to form. Also, unfortunately, there is the fairly hard fact that the early history of Christianity (say the first hundred years or so) is, pretty much, not supported to any significant degree by any contemporary historical sources. Religiously minded people have tended to swarm around blank slates in general, and, regretably, early Christianity pretty much qualifies as a blank slate. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Deuteronomist, Priestly source
I've been working on these 2 articles, Deuteronomist and Priestly source. Sort of a hobby, something to prevent me from doing something useful with my time, like learning the tuba or writing long letters to the Foreign Minister suggesting ways in which the world might be made a better place. I'd be right pleased if you could have a look and tell me where you think I've gone wrong. PiCo (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re that article: if I were French I'd make some comment about being en train d'enculer les mouches. PiCo (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ou de couper des cheveux en quatre. But, there is more than a fly's bum's difference between the theory that Christianity originated in a 500BC Samaritan group (which later emigrated to India) or originated in 50sAD. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is indeed bizarre. But he has some solid-looking sources - which unfortunately I can't check up. But I did look up the Cambridge History of Judaism: The late Roman-Rabbinic period, where, around page 259, Steven Katz begins a mind-numbing discussion of the Rabbinic Response to Xianity. By the time he gets tom page 280 he's definitely tending to entertain, tentatively, even, one might say, with the turgid mental to-ings and fro-ings of one who has, as it were, spent too many hours reading the late James, the notion, if one may so put it, that the original Birkat h-minim never mentioned the notzrim. Which leaves us little the wiser as to where the term actually did come from, or what it meant, or where it went after being thrown out of the party. Lady Drower, of course, says that "It might be in Galilee that our original Nasoraeans are to be sought and Epiphanius may be stating a truth when he says that there were ... It is certain that Simon the Magian was never a Nasoraean!" (emphasis added in the form of an exclamation mark). Lady D appears also to have drunk at Henry's well, with all those mays and mights, and I'm glad she's certain of Simon. A certain Rudolf Macúch Lovely name, Lawrence Durrell could have used it) tells us that "there was little need in Nasoraean literature for such common notions as "beggar", "flea" etc". I'm much taken by a language that knows neither beggars nor fleas - the sign of a happy people. But, apart from the news that they itch not, neither do they scratch, I still don't know much about the Notzrim. PiCo (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi PiCo, the academic sources are sources I added, the IP just "adopts" them and rewrites content before the ref, which he/she presumably can't access(?). I think Lady Drower was the only one there before, but the IP hasn't particularly cited that. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem really is that I have no idea what the terms mean. Have a look at this, around p.50. But the general impression I get is that the word notzrim can't be definitely identified in the Late Classical writings. PiCo (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read Teppler and cited the book several times in the article, it seems to be one of the most objective/up to date sources. No notzrim can't be identified beyond the identifications given in sources such as Teppler and the modern dictionaries. Which is why no OR/legends beyond those refs should be in the article.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's this about watchers? I understood the Watchers were quasi-divine figures from late Hellenistic Jewish literature - either Jubilees or Enoch (Enoch I think) - whose job was to watch, but from heaven, not Earth. Definitelt not Christians, nor any other humans. PiCo (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just coincidence I think. The Hebrew word for "watchers" in Daniel which is the origin of the angelic watchers in Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Hebrew word for "watch-tower-keepers" in Jeremiah which the IP (following a medieval rabbinical tractate) is trying to connect with pre-Christian "Nazarenes" are two unrelated Hebrew terms. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rabbinic tractates don't qualify as reliable sources - tho there might be a problem convincing the IP of that. Might be able to include the rabbis as a curiousity. PiCo (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The academic sources I added do mention those sources, they have to as that's the primary text territory, unfortunately (from the IP's view) the same academic sources also qualify them as "late" "dependent on the Talmud" OWTTE etc. Which doesn't help the origin mythology of the Knanaya people I guess, if that's what's behind these reverts. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is weird beyond redemption. Wikipedia unfortunately gives ample space for weirdness, and there a limit to what can be done to counter it. I prefer to tackle the big ones, like the main books of the Hebrew Bible - if I can introduce reality there I may achieve something worthwhile. (Tho always bearing in mind that everything in wiki is writ in water - does anyone read Keats any more?) PiCo (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Knanaya article is weird? Yes, but is at least sourced to one of their church's published texts. And yes wiki is writ in water, but responsible sourced edits do at least stay on the surface of that water in mainstream articles, which Deuteronomist is, and anything Messianic isn't. :( In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Lady Drower before - quite a lady. And what a period that was - she could have (no doubt did) hobnob with Gertrude Bell and Freya Stark (who once turned down a marriage proposal from a millionaire without being aware that he'd made it - he was as obscure as Henry James) and Agatha Christie and that mad Englishman who created the Jordanian army. God I was born in the wrong century, 1900 was the right year, provided you survived that bumpy bit in your early 20s. I went looking for Gertrude Bell's house in Baghdad - it's still there, miracle of miracles. And the contents of the British Council library were for sale on the pavement in Mutannabi Street - a Lebanese friend (who insists that the Lebanese are Phoenicians, not Arabs) got a complete set of Burton's Arabian Nights (first subscribers' edition) for $200. And a Brit friend found a strange little brass box with an inscription identifying it as Bonny Prince Charlie's cash-box - presumably genuine, since why would anyone bother to fake such a strange relic, but how did it get to Iraq? And myself did find a whole antique shop full or curiosities - a wooden fan-contraption with a handle at the far end (you got your fan-wallah to stand behind =turning the handle while you, the sahib, enjoyed the breeze and a post-prandial), and a silver tray inscribed with a Persian hunting scene, and a horse-hair fly-whisk with a solid silver handle, and the hood-ornament from a Rolls Royce. I bought nothing, being too afraid of Saddam's ability to sniff me out (they were all regarded as National Heritage). Ah timidity, you've been the death of me!PiCo (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Frederick Peake or T. E. Lawrence? Yep, certainly an era. I guess Notzrim AfD/merge stuff can be on the Talk page there? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to be nostalgic for a time before one was born? Possible yes, sensible no. No doubt someday someone will look back and murmur how wonderful it must have been to have lived through those wonderful years of the early 2000s. To be at the party and miss the fireworks, how tragic.


 * Yes, the Talk page on the article seems best.


 * Not TE Lawrence, he only ever visited Iraq once, and he didn't get off the boat. Dahoum was dead and he saw no point in living. PiCo (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Notzrim
All I can say is, you are a very patient person.Editor2020 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be possible to report to ANI, leave a note asking for input on the religion topics noticeboard, or maybe ask for a third opinion at Third opinion about the conduct of the IP. Those would probably be the best way to go to get multiple independent and neutral editors involved. Also, it might make sense to file a request for comment as per WP:RFC to generate a wider discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is this consideration taking place? PiCo (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point I believe that the article would likely be deleted were it considered for deletion as per AFD. I myself have found no particularly substantive discussion of the Notzrim in any sources which would lead me to think otherwise. However, I acknowledge that you who have spent more time with the subject probably know better, and would welcome your opinions on the matter. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At one point I thought it worth keeping, but I am going with Jayjg's original REDIRECT and have proposed an AfD/merge to Nazarene (title) on Talk:Notzrim, what's the next step? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You know that if you implement this AfD/merge you will be risking an all-out edit war like the one in 2004, right? There is a reason for the three articles. You might want to check the archives to understand the issues before you proceed. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I know of no such issue. This is a simple case of a duplicate Hebrew/English article. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, whatever you say. ;0) Ovadyah (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fascinating to notice the rather clearly stated threat of an all-out edit war, by the way. :) John Carter (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I was even around when this edit-war took place seven years ago; even if I was, I don't know the details. I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it think you two are greatly underestimating the complexity of this subject.  Sooner or later, an expert will come along and find a problem with this mass-merge and the subsequent ham-handed rewrite.  This entire subject urgently needs the attention of an expert.  Ovadyah (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This talk can go on the page. Far from being a "ham-handed rewrite" it has removed unsourced/fringe views, but still can go back to a REDIRECT, this meets AfD/merge requirements. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that remark, and I will strike it from the record. Ovadyah (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Felix Janiewicz
Hello. Please see Felix Janiewicz. It has been proposed to  merge two  articles. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed/merged thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Notzrim for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Notzrim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Notzrim until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Christianity work group
Personally, I would agree that it would be good to have a Jewish Christianity work group, to deal with the Messianic Jews, the various other Jewish Christian movements of the past few hundred years, and the various groups of the early centuries of Christianity which apparently had Jewish leanings. And, actually, there is one, officially, at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish Christianity]. The primary problems I see are the unfortunate lack of editors who are specifically interested in the topics, as well as, as a lesser point, the fact that I personally know of no specific reference/overview books on the subject which might be able to be used as basic guideline indicators for content. There is a bibliography article for the topic of Jewish Christianity, but, at least so far as I have seen, a lot of those works are to some degree or other proposers of new (sometimes rejected) theories, and not that many really "neutral" overviews.

It might, emphasis on might, alternately make sense to maybe create a group to deal with "early Christianity", pretty much dealing with the often contentious topics of groups from early Christianity which have, for the most part, apparently died out or been merged into other groups. I have noticed a bit of a distressing tendency for some new groups to attempt to say that they might be revivals of one or more of these earlier variations on what those groups sometimes call "true Christianity". There are at least a few highly-regarded reference works on that topic, which often indicate the sources for their specific articles, and it may well be easier and more productive to maybe create a working group for such content, given the higher number of high-quality reference/overview sources available which could be used as indicators of weight in the articles. I am more than willing to do what I can in regard to either topic. I seem to remember you having indicated some other problem articles in your eyes. Stupid me, I forgot where, though. If there are any sources which support those POVs/theories, like, maybe, some theories about how some Indian Nasrani groups claim to be descendants of some other groups, there certainly could be potentially an article on, for instances, Indian Nasrani origins theories, which might more easily meet N and POV requirements. Anyway, if there are any articles in particular which you think I might be able to help with, I feel stupid asking you to tell me what they are again, but I will see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. FWIW, I have also recently seen an old Shiite group which called itself the Nazayroi or something similar, which, for all I know, might be in some translations referred to as Nazarenes. That group might be the Nizari (?), but I got the impression that the group had gone moribund. Anyway, it might be worth checking to see if there is any reason to maybe see if they have ever been called something similar enough to be included in the Nazarene disambiguation page.

2010? 2011? Recording of William Tell
I see that you have added this recording to the box.

However, if you check the top of the box, the name of the characters are all listed, so there is no need to repeat them below. More importantly, the singers' names should appear in the order in which they are listed above so that reference can be made to who is singing what role.

I've done a little tidying up and re-ordering to comply with the system which exists across the board for all opera recordings. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry I was in a hurry. Will try and go back and tidy myself.. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a few notes
Hi, eye-glance! It wouldn't be diplomatic for me to edit Jesus in the Talmud, but might I offer you the following notes for your consideration?

-(a)Some editions of the Talmud are missing some of the references, which were removed either by Christian censors starting in the 13th century,[4] or by Jews themselves due to fear of antisemitic reprisals, or some were possibly lost by negligence or accident.'
 * Weasel words used repetitively:

-(b) However, most modern editions published since the early 20th century have restored most of the references (I have a cite for this for Israeli printings since 1948 but it would probably be contested as not RS)

(a) Talmud was banned by the Pope in 1553,[citation needed] (b) Index Expurgatorius in 1559.[citation needed]
 * Citations needed

Both may be supplied from Amnon Raz-Krakotzin, ‘Censorship, Editing, and the Reshaping of Jewish Identity: The Catholic Church and Hebrew Literature in the Sixteenth Century,’ in Allison P. Coudert, Jeffrey S. Shoulson (eds.) Hebraica veritas?: Christian Hebraists and the study of Judaism in early Modern Europe, Uni. of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. pp.125-158

(a) 1553 Sept 12 Pope Julius III issued a papal decreeing confiscation and burning of all copies of the Talmud in the Catholic world,p.125 (b)Put on Index 1559 p.132


 * Note 5. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin (1977), is not in the bibliography but used here, though the text is a reprint in that anthology of a section from Jacob Zallel Lauterbach‘s Rabbinic essays, Hebrew Union College Press, 1951 p.475. Since Lauterbach’s book is in the bibliography, economy of citation would suggest eliding Weiss-Rosmarin and citing Lauterbach’s book directly.

= 'die Häretiker und die Christen nach den 'ältesten jüdischen Angaben.' =read ‘terrifying’ for horribiles. ‘Horrible’ has lost its original latinate force and flavour in modern usage. ‘Horror/horreo’ in Latin usage means anything that literally makes your hair stand on end.
 * Strack’s book is missing the umlauts.
 * Johann Christoph Wagenseil ‘s Tela Ignea Satanæ, sive Arcani et Horribiles Judæorum Adversus Christum, Deum, et Christianam Religionem Libri, ('Flaming Arrows of Satan, that is, the secret and horrible books of the Jews against Christ, God, and the Christian religion') which discussed Jesus in the Talmud.
 * Maier wrote Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung (lacks, unlike other books a bracketed translation: ‘Jesus of Nazareth in Talmudic tradition’). Hope this helps. Best Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ola Nishidani. Good to see you're around, all very useful will employ 100% of it, when the opportunity presents and if can get a merge. Knew the horribiles ;) In ictu oculi (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

General comments
Several things at once here.

One, I remember you saying that you saw some POV pushing in the content you deal with. If this is the case, or if you have any other concerns about user conduct, probably the best way to deal with the matter is to raise the issue with the POV pusher or person involved in the conduct causing concern, at either their individual user talk page or discreetly in the article talk page, and ask them to adhere to the guidelines for POV. If that doesn't work, one might ask some other uninvolved party to review the situation, and make whatever comments to you or the other person that they deem required. If that still doesn't work, and the conduct in question continues, then you might be able to file a request for user conduct at WP:RFC/U regarding the conduct in question and ask for broader input. The person you called in earlier could be the "co-signer".

Two, one of the ongoing problems I have seen regarding some of the content is the overestimation of the theories of Robert Eisenman. I found a 2005 issue of Dead Sea Discoveries which contains a piece on how some theories which have been found to be "scientifically impossible", including Eisenman's, according to the article, still receive substantive attention in the media, and often tend to be presented in the media in a way which might be seen as lending those theories more credibility than they really have. I think that there is sufficient basis for a Dead Sea Scrolls in popular culture which would deal with among other things such matters. If you would like me to e-mail you the pieces, I will. They are available online from JSTOR as well, if you have access to that databank. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, you're probably right that there is, but it's quite scary how that could turn out, given that there are so many "true believers" for any fruitcake theory on Wikipedia. Can I think about it and get back to you? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My brownie
Hey, thanks! Linguogeek (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
Hello. It seems you recently created the page Overweight, which you redirected, undoubtedly unintentionally, to itself. If you can, please correct this page to be a valid redirect; otherwise, it will most likely be deleted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Opera in Arabic
Thank you for creating those interesting articles. When you create beyond-stub articles with inline references, like Opera in Arabic, please consider nominating your work for front page exposure at T:TDYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars and Baroque composers
Your award of a barnstar for work on the Baroque composers list is much appreciated! Thesselius deserves his placeit's been a bit of ongoing project of mine to try to make this list as comprehensive and reliable as possible. I see you have been busy too making a start on some articles for redlinked composers. Very useful.

One question, if I may ask: What is your reason for removing the redlinked Pedro de Araújo from the list? The dates given for him may not have been correctthe Grove edition I consulted says fl. 1662–1705although elsewhere it's given as c. 1640–1705. I've been unable to find a good non-subscription biographical link for him so far, although his Batalha de 6. tom is here. I can't honestly say I know much about him but here's an excerpt from what Grove says: Araújo [Arauxo, Arraujo], Pedro de (fl 1662–1705). Portuguese organist and composer. He was a leading figure among secular and monastic organists in the archdiocese of Braga during the last quarter of the 18th century... He is known to have composed 13 keyboard works and another six can be attributed to him on stylistic grounds... Not to be confused with pt:Pedro de Araújo Lima, BTW. (RT) (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mistake, fixed thanks Pedro de Araújo (composer) :) In ictu oculi (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for creating the article (RT) (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Yeshu

 * You happen to be right on most points, but the majority refuses to budge, and therefore the article will remain the mess it is. As soon as you drop it, my hunch is the page will no longer be edited, which may be a good thing, since it is unreadable. My practice is, if I find the 'community' unresponsive to commonsense, I work another page where things can get done without endless nagging. The rule is, unless you can expeditiously run through a poor page, and fix it to minimum standards of informed clarity, it's a waste of time to persist remonstrating logically and with evidence on the talk page. The last time I wrote a commissioned article for an encyclopedia, I was asked to do so by the general editor, who held a view of the subject diametrically opposed to my own. It took a week, and, except I think for one minute grammatical correction (it was for a foreign language work), was published as written. That is how the real world of scholarship works, on recognition of competence and trust in fairness. See you around, Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you…
…for your very kind words on my talk page. I hope that, despite our differences of opinion, or perhaps as a result of them, we can be able to collaborate together to make this project better. -- Avi (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk page templates
When you create a new article, would you be so kind as to add the talk page assessment templates? For bios, you just need to add and appropriate country project template, like. See Talk:Daniel Bieliński. In the articles themselves, add the stub template if appropriate, usually country-bio-stub will do for bios. See. If you could go over your past creations, this would be much appreciated. Those templates are very useful for active wikiprojects, as they feed into article alerts and other data feeds, see for example our feeds on WP:POLAND. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 22:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this really too much to ask? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Red composers
A Marienvesper was assembled from works of several composers, mostly red links. Do you know more? - The Huelgas Ensemble returned, but only to sing praise to the cigar, not exactly my taste, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda, I recognise 1 of the 3 names, have opened stubs on all 3 and will try and fill in. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Excellent music! I noticed one composer had a red link already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More music: a mass by Alessandro Striggio and his famous 40-part Ecce beatam lucem, combined with others, two red Rheingau Musik Festival (didn't know where to place it) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaronic priesthood incoming links
Re: the move of Aaronic priesthood to Aaronic priesthood (LDS Church) and the creation of a disambiguation page at Aaronic priesthood. That's a good decision in my view, but there are several incoming links now the disambiguation page that need to be resolved (per the code of honor) and linked to the correct page. Most of them need to go to Aaronic priesthood (LDS Church), I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that as a good decision.--חודר לעומר (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Birth
I would be very interested to know your views as to whether or not it is worth mentioning Leslie Weatherhead's [controversial] suggestion regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus. That was included in my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&diff=446053315&oldid=442209340 ... but my contribution was reverted yesterday (21 August) by Wiki-Editor "History2007".--DLMcN (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sorry but History 2007 is one of the best editors on those kind of pages, and the revert was correct. That kind of one-man idea might be notable on the article of the individual, but not in a main article. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I am curious why you have made the virgin birth the centerpiece of several articles, or at the very least strongly emphasized it, even when this topic was only marginally important in the life of the individuals discussed. It is almost as if you want to assess every Christian based on what his belief in the virgin birth was.--Donbodo (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In a word, subcategorisation. "Non-Trinitarian" is a Christological umbrella term, therefore the subdivision of Non-Trinitarians into Arians, Socinians, and Psilantropists is also primarily a Christological subcategorisation. Also the fact that we have Latin Polish and Hungarian documents detailing the differences between Arians, Socinians, and Psilantropists 1570-1750 demonstrates that it was important enough to them to debate, publish and often excommunicate each other. Likewise the distinctions in Christology between a William Whiston, Theophilus Lindsey and Thomas Belsham was important enough to them to debate and write on it, or we wouldn't be able to subcategorize. What other aspect of Christology is used to subcategorize Non-Trinitarians?? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Christological subcategories Arian and Socinian are based on pre-existence, not the virgin birth. In fact, one can be either and believe in the virgin birth or not. The issue is irrelevant to those subcategories. For example, even if I believe that Christ pre-existed his human life and was born as a man, I do not believe that Mary had to be a virgin. She could have had sex with Joseph whenever. It doesn't matter. The issue is related more to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy than it is to Christology. And check your facts. No one in the Unitarian movement was excommunicated for acceptance or rejection of the virgin birth.--Donbodo (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The general point is actually covered by lumpers and splitters. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Johannes Rulicius
Does this person mean anything to you? I'm coming at him from the pansophic direction, but he had a lot to do with refugee Protestants (Bohemian, Moravian and Polish Brethren). There is also something unexplained about relationship with Jews in Amsterdam, and the reputation as an "orientalist" (National Portrait Gallery) suggesting there might be some missing portion of biography. There's a book linked to Poland. Under different names he crops up in various places. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mnachem Risikoff
Hi, In ictu oculi - I just reverted your moving "Mnachem Risikoff" to "Menachem Risikoff" because you say it is "usual English spelling." This issue was discussed on the talk page and everyone agreed NOT to move it. "Steven" may be the usual English spelling for that name, but if an individual used "Stephen" his whole life, we don't list the person as "Steven." I have many books by this man and the author is listed as "Mnachem," and I even have papers with his personal "stamp" that shows "Mnachem." The Library of Congress has papers on file for him as "Mnachem." That was the way he spelled his name when he used English. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, but I did check Encyclopedia Judaica before the move. Fine by me. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In Ictu Oculi - Thanks! Added some notes on names, including a link to a photo of Risikoff's stationery. But I have another question, and thought you might be able to help. In your note on the Mnachem Risikoff talk page you asked if there were a microfiche or other record of the Brooklyn Eagle article quoted. By going to http://www.fultonhistory.com/Fulton.html and typing in "Resnicoff," the article that is quoted comes up as the 8th .pdf image.  However, I can't figure out how to link that page for a footnote, since only the search page URL comes up.  I wonder if you know a way to come up with a URL that will go straight to the page that is cited? NearTheZoo (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Figured out the link! http://www.fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%205/Brooklyn%20NY%20Daily%20Eagle/Brooklyn%20NY%20Daily%20Eagle%201942%20Grayscale/Brooklyn%20NY%20Daily%20Eagle%201942%20Grayscale%20-%206232.pdf#xml=http://www.fultonhistory.com/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&u=a583d7c&DocId=14036424&Index=Z%3a%2fFulton%20Historical&HitCount=3&hits=30e+375+41c+&SearchForm=C%3a%5cinetpub%5cwwwroot%5cFulton%5fNew%5fform%2ehtml&.pdf Will add to article. NearTheZoo (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

logic?
What logic is there for primary sources to not be in footnotes? See that not putting them there causes unneeded article bulk and exhaustion of the casual reader.--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

English
I commend you on your changing of Hebrew into English. But you forgot this one! Chesdovi (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Something you should see
I have raised a question about your recent edits at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Terumah

 * See Talk:Terumah. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Abraham ben Moses ben Maimon
I thought I had seen him around: Avraham son of Rambam. Merge? Chesdovi (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Common Era
Ref your recent addition on manuals of style to the Common Era article, you haven't explained what the "SBL" manual of style is. (Though I doubt that your addition will last: I'm sure that there are many US Christian Right journals that have an MoS prohibition on even ''thinking' of the terms CE and BCE :) ). --Red King (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism and Gnosticism
Proceed with proposed merge In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hello In ictu oculi, I just thought I'd let you know that I say your article Temple treasury in the New Articles list--You did an excellent job with including references and citations. Kind regards and happy editing! Jipinghe (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Translations
May I remind you of what we talked about on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism? Please do not translate all Hebrew terms in Judaism. That is what articles and internal links are for. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition, it is common practice to bring Jewish sources as references. You should not try to singlehandedly change this without seeking prior consensus. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Btw, where do you live? Debresser (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Aramaic primacy
There is no official position on this issue in Syriac Churches. Obviously some support(ed) it like the Assyrian Church of the East but mostly they don't view it as unlikely. Many arguments, particularly the "גַֿמלָא" are popular among native speakers of Aramaic making this hypothesis even more plausible.--  R a f y  talk 12:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The current version is just OK as it is analogous to the Greek primacy article.--  R a f y  talk 14:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean... The name you mentioned earlier does yield some interesting google results. You might want to start a discussion for a rename and see how far this one is supported, I am no expert on this matter but I'm sure some of those watching the page are more informed than me.--  R a f y  talk 15:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Kehuna
I removed the Cfd template from Category:Kehuna, since you did not create a discussion on the discussion page of WP:Cfd. Please feel free to re-tag the category at any time. Debresser (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Johannes von Ronge
Vegaswikian closed, and then at my request, reopened discussion of what title the Johannes von Ronge/Johannes von Rönge/Johannes Ronge article should have. Since I think the way we've been describing what we as individual editors see as the appropriate title, I am asking prior participants to !vote explicitly on each of the three options at Talk:Johannes von Ronge, hence this notice. The article has also been listed at WP:RM. Thank you for your participation, --Nuujinn (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of J. Frederic McCurdy


A tag has been placed on J. Frederic McCurdy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Jean Bodin
Is Bodin's Heptaplomeres any use to you? I was offline for a few days compulsorily, and did much background reading on Bodin. The specific reason I ask is that Christopher Hill's Milton and the English Revolution makes much of Milton's access to Bodin in manuscript, with reference to mortalism in particular. I'm unable to judge from what is said there whether this is more than a nice idea about input into Milton's thought. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Elias = Helios
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding closure. The thread is "Merger of Elias into Elijah".The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. -- Andreas (T) 20:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Chaim Avraham Dov Ber Levine haCohen
Hi, I noticed that you recently started to develop this page. I was wondering if any more is coming, because it seems to me that the page Malachim (Hasidic group) already covers this person pretty adequately. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk templates
In response to your question: practice and searching :) What I mean by that is that if I create an article (or see one that needs templates added), I look at other similar articles for relevant templates. After a while, you'll memorize them, for example I know that if I deal with a bio article, I need to add WikiProject Biography and another template for the nationality (such as WikiProject Poland. Those are important as they allow the articles to be included in tools such as article alerts (see POLAND). If you write a Poland-related article and nobody adds the template, we (the members of Wikipedia:POLAND) will not be aware if it is deleted, moved, subject to an RfC comment, and so on. There are other tools that benefit from those templates, too. PS. For example, when your article on J. Frederic McCurdy was threatened with deletion, if it had been tagged with appropriate templates, you might have received help from members of those projects, rather than having to deal with the issue yourself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How to fill - you can again see this from looking at a few entries, usually it is just a |class=|importance= with class being stub, start, C, B (GA, A, and FA being awarded by the community), and importance, low, mid, high, top. There are some additional variables you can read at Assessment, and some projects have more complex templates with taskforces, but this is not something to worry about from day one. And of course you are right, many projects are inactive. That's sad, but we can hope they will be revived one day, and that will be more likely if they'll have tagged articles. At the same time, there are projects that are quite vibrant. Frankly, it takes only a few people to make a project active - perhaps you could try to look at breathing some life into those you think should be more active (I draw my line at trying to maintain and be actively involved with three projects - Poland, Sociology and Pittsburgh). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

New user David Please do not post here, please stay on your own Talk page
Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge
Hi In ictu oculi, I flagged the Law of Moses article with a proposal to merge. Maybe I don't understand your reasoning on the article talk page. Anyway, you put a lot of work into making this stub into something more credible, so I thought you might want to weigh in with a comment. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we close discussion and reach a decision on this proposal to merge. I don't see a consensus. I suggested on the talk page that you might want to consider changing the article title to avoid confusion, but I can't justify deletion of the article content. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Isa (name)
What is a "Joshua-rabbi"? AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The "Yeshu" theory still doesn't explain the ع at the beginning of عيسى, but if it's advocated by reputable sources, it can be included... AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstart
Thank you for the barnstar. Not many notice us wikignomes under our mushrooms. As I can't pass the Turing test, I may or may not be bot. Bgwhite (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Allin (Anglican)
Since it was quite hard to grub up any biographical information, I called on a friend and expert; and there is now plenty to go on. But the theology ... can I hand it back to you? Allin was obviously on some sort of terms with Basil Wilberforce. Besides a letter from Wilberforce printed in one of Allin's books, there is this mention:. But I can't place any of this myself. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Charles, I'll see if there's anything else to add. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Schneider
Thanks for him and the festivals. I tried to link, most went to conductor, there's also "musician" on top of "organist", I wonder if it's two or three different people and who is the vice president of the Frankfurt Musikhochschule? Please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found that the flutist is the vice president. But I still don't know if Michael Schneider (musician) is one of the two we know (and which one?) or a third with a very common name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He has a bio at bach-cantatas, but that is the same as La Stagione, same sort of English. If you add sources for the recordings he's ready for DYK, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Please take a look at what I wrote at the end of the Ger Toshav discussion page. As we discussed, I modified the page based on the ET. But now I am concerned that what I did was vandalism, and I would appreciate your advice on how to proceed. (This besides my explanation for removal of the Bible section, which I think you misunderstood.) I will be back (hopefully) on Friday to look at it.Mzk1 (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

On the brightside
A short poem in glench to thank you to contribute so hardly to the project.

The lost rose of York

Above the rift of the hard song

Remains the cliff of the grave of tongue

Of the spirits of the hearts of men

Who gave their honey to the green women

With their poor baggies and their salty flow

With their melodies and their great willow

With their bloody glaive and their lowly bowl

They praise the faggies to win the haggis

With their damn fire they rose the Occident

Of Saint Birgit, bringing the holy balm

Landing on the shore of the little York

They crossed the river with their bitter hoses

Then, building the dream with a refined trend

They finish by vanishing under the flag of blend

Question, when the king throwed his hand on the landshore of Ellan Vannin, were yet sharks in the Irish sea ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulv (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians

 * User: Thom100 has deleted the Merge Tag from both the source and target articles while the discussion was going on. His behavior is quite erratic and against the basic policies of Wikipedia. I think it would be better to refer the case for the Administrator's intervention. Your comment would be helpful in this regard. --Ashleypt (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Another duplication!
Salmon ben Jeroham was created as Solomon ben Jeroham in 2006. Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Schneider (conductor)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bible translations into Cornish
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A Cornish Bible would seem to need an amazingly small print-run. Kindness to trees, really. PiCo (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For me?
Why thank you *blush*. That's very kind of you...but I couldn't do so much editing of music articles without so many good ones already in the pipeline. Like the ones you work on. :-)

I'll add it to my shelf with the other hardware. :-) Thanks again, and happy editing!-- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Cadman


A tag has been placed on William Cadman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Remarks regarding Ger Toshav
Well, you certainly are a gentleman! I put off looking at the comment because I hate fighting, and I was very pleasantly surprised when my intemperate comments were returned by such kind words. (The main reason for the tone was you comment to another that you had no time to continue, so I kind of felt my hands were tied.) I would have accepted anything short of a threat, but frankly you made my day.

Regarding Ger v'Toshav, I think the point is more that for someone to take a particular statement in the Talmud and explain that as an explanation of a particular verse in the Bible, would be both POV and OR, the former because it is the Talmud's view only, and the latter because the Talmud will often use a verse as a place to "hangs its hat" (asmachta), rather than as the actual meaning of the verse; and even if it does, it is not necessarily explaining it on the level of the simple meaning (p'shat). (One place where it is pretty clear they are deriving it directly is regarding the discussion in Pesachim of the verse regarding non-kosher beef, "to the ger you shall give it and he shall eat it, or you shall sell it to the nochri". I don't have the locations at the moment, but I will look if you wish.) But to answer directly, the only thing I could do there would be to do a search on a talmud site. I own a Biblical concordance, but not a Talmudic one.

I need to backtrack regarding the Targum. On the verse I cited above, it says, "to the uncircumcised resident (Toshav Orail) you shall give it". Highly suggestive (note how Ger becomes Toshav) but not definitive from a Wikipedia standpoint.Mzk1 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * sorry, didn't get to this before.


 * Reply to your last post on my page. Reference to Rashi where only the toshav is Ger Toshav, other things.Mzk1 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Maimonides
Just to explain why you may see so many references to the Rambam (it's easier to write, and a poll showed that no one recognized the Christian term either) in Jewish Legal articles. Since they deal with Jewish law, the easiest way to get some factual information is to use either the Rambam's Mishneh Torah or the Shulchan Aruch - or both. The reason for using the former is not that current practice follows it in detail (with the exception of some Yemenites), but that since differences in traditional practice are not that great, it is a wonderful source for concepts in Jewish law for the following reasons:


 * It is a major source of Jewish law. Together with the Shulchan Aruch, it has more commonly-used books using it as a framework than anything except the Bible and Talmud. It also has the comments of the second Raavad as glosses, which form some major disputes in Jewish law. In many cases the Rambam's language is adopted by the Shulchan Aruch, and so on down the line of Halachic guides.
 * It is written in easy-to-understand Mishnaic Hebrew and is available in many homes and synagogues. (It is the only major work by the Rambam in Hebrew.)
 * Most important, it is comprehensive. There is always the problem that Jewish law books often will not state what they consider to be obvious. The Mishneh Torah has comprehensive descriptions of the traditional view in a defined structure, together with introductions, conclusions, Biblical derivations, punishments, etc. It covers parts of the Law not applicable at present (sacrifices, for example) and such esotric ideas (to Judaism) as mortal sins. For example, the law of the slanderer, which appears in the Bible to refer to proof of virginity, is not at all understood that way in traditional Judaism. The Mishneh Torah goes through the whole business; it would be hard to find such a treatment elsewhere.
 * Together with the Shulchan Aruch, it has a sort of internal peer review, in the form of commentaries on the page (one by the author of the Shulcan Aruch). So this helps one see if there is significant disagreement.

So this is why things appear to be about the Ramabam's view of something, when they really aren't.Mzk1 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Question, non-admin merge closure
IIO, 1) you could pose the question in more detail to Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure and include link(s) to the merge discussions you are concerned with and the specific actions you are contemplating. Some wise admin will help you out.  2) Even admins should not close discussions they are involved in, so if the discussions you are contemplating closing involves pros and cons and you have taken sides, you should not close them. Even when I change my mind and withdrawn a nomination for a move or merge, I don't close the discussion I started. Hope that helps. Don't hesitate to ask questions anytime. --Mike Cline (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Eberlin
Would you have time to look at Johann Ernst Eberlin, friend of Leopold Mozart. There's room for improvement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Going to rehearse his Missa secundi toni for performance on Sunday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahah, I think that's on the Rodolfus Choir' CD, which I will dig out and listen to again in your honour.. ;) Alles Gute. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

X = ???
So exactly how many language do you speak? X =...? My guess is X > 7. I have counted English, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Italian, German,.... and maybe American... I am impressed. So X = ...? History2007 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Usual cheerful self
Just bored today. Would you like us to do Torah instead? Warning: it's a live-wire issue with a certain class of editor. PiCo (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Serpent I'll just leave alone. Doing the research is more of a chore than I can face - and I don't really have an interest in Christian topics. (My interest is the historical circumstances that led to the creation of the books of the Hebrew bible - history, not theology). PiCo (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll restore it. PiCo (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-English titles
Looks like we're finally on a roll with the non-English titles. If you want help out, you can nominate Praha hlavní nádraží, aka Prague Main railway station. Kauffner (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Building CONSENSUS is key to success
Hi In ictu. Come now, what's up? You have managed to arouse a united front against you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. I would suggest that you WP:LETITGO, otherwise it seems that so many Judaic editors are not going to go along with your latest wave of edits to change 100% legitimate Hebrew terminology especially of religious notions. Come now, every language is allowed to use its words on the English WP, see for yourself the hundreds if not thousands of categories of various foreign words used on the English WP at Category:Words and phrases by language! You seem to be goading, inciting and confronting the very experienced and learned Judaic editors in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. I would suggest you take a deep breath, step back from the brink and proceed with more sensitivity. If I can be of help, let me know. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Izak I just confused you with Mzk1 on the other talk page. When it's expressed nicely as Debresser, or in fact yourself or Mzk1, it's fine. But when someone calls someone names, has deletion tantrums, all for simply applying WP policies per reliable sources, then its not really fine is it? There's inevitably going to be a cultural difference between what Debresser, perhaps fairly, called "ivory tower" sources, the Jacob Neusner, Reform, SBL, JE, JPS sources vs the more populist Artscroll type sources, I recognise this. And it may well be that I would do well to recognise this better. But it isn't just the WP:UE issue, there's also the breadth of articles - the way an encyclopedia, the Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971 for example, tries to cover the whole chronology of a topic, though again, sensitivity, I do realise that the Ancient Near East in particular is a sensitive and potential goad to religious believers, and goading should not be the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is a goad to Christians too, and many of them have no interest whatsoever in the "Old Testament." However... there have been some very silly deletes recently, I'm living with them, but can live without having polemics as well. Thanks for your comments. I'm more than happy to chat. Take care :) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Arabic name for Enoch
Hi there! I'm awfully sorry to trouble you but I'm curious as to where you find the spelling إينوخ in Arabic? The following is a quote from Lisan al-Arab with an addition by al-Razi (Imam Mohammed Ibn Abi Bakr Ar-Razi - Mukhtar us-Sihah) given in brackets: ويقال: سمي إِدْرِيس عليه السلام اكثرة دِراسَتِه كتابَ الله تعالى واسمه أَخْنُوخُ (بخاءَين معجمتَين بوزْنِ مَفْعُولٍ). This is in agreement with what is found in the other books of classical Arabic such as al-Bidayah wa'an-Nihayah & Arais Al-Majalis Fi Qisas Al-Anbiya as well as in the Arabic translation of The Bible. Please let me know about the origin of the spelling that you've offered and forgive me if I've inadvertantly caused offence.

Peace, respect & best wishes to you. --khaadimone (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, it was just a casual restore given that it had been in the article (not by me) a long time and when I checked on the ar.wikipedia Idris article that إينوخ was used there, not أَخْنُوخُ. But I could be wrong - this is a name which typically has variant spellings in every language. By all means remove it on the article page to Talk:Enoch - and also add those sources above with publication years to the main article as ref. Do you need any help doing that? Glad to help. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the speedy (& helpful) response. In response to your question - Yes please. I'll take any help that is on offer. I have to confess to being a bookworm that is still struggling to understand how to do this internet editing.

¡Hasta pronto!

--khaadimone (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cuza
Thank you. Much like you, I'm not sure what name the article should have, but the issue should be swung by intelligent arguments, not by puerile forum shopping or embarrassing red herrings. I'm not sure I deserve the reward, though: it is way too easy to find arguments against the "it's defamatory" nonsense; it is harder to find the patience to still debate on such grounds with the eternal obscurantists. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually think that Gscholar points against the "Alexander John" variant. (Look again, you might have inverted the results.) As I have said, I am not against that move, as much as I am against getting to articles moved through "extortion", with such as absurd claims as "defamation". I also tend to leave articles as they are when I find them, if there's no obvious problem with the name, because consensus generally yields continuity and coherence. In this case, it was at the Anglicized variant until some internet meme formed around goodness knows what group of soccer hooligans or schoolboys, who would be hard pressed to even utter a sentence about Cuza that is not some tacky and basic cliche. I think, whatever the outcome, that any such move should be considered is with decent and dispassionate debate. Otherwise, the trolls just grow bigger. Dahn (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't. But anyway, technically, he was vandalizing my post in a lame effort to flame and taunt me. By now, Randy's only hope in hell is that I actually lose my temper, but I'm still cool as a cucumber. Dahn (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Daniel Danielis


The article Daniel Danielis has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Magister Scienta talk (Editor Review)  00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Step-Before-RM
In the twinkling of an eye - I think your idea of using an RFC is a good one. You'll need to decide a couple of things: 1) What is the scope/question being posed in the RFC? and 2) What is the best WP venue to conduct the RFC? The answer to the first question will significantly inform the answer to the 2nd. As to the first question. For RFCs to be successful in achieving their objectives, the question(s) being proposed must be clear, concise and objective. In other words, an editor reading the RFC must clearly understand what the question(s) is/are, what policy/guidelines are in play and what they would be supporting/opposing should they chose to participate. On the objectivity of the RFC, it must be written in a manner that allows an objective assessment of the question(s) without having to discount obvious biases in the way the question(s) is/are worded.

An RFC that gets a lot of visibility will also certainly get a lot of input that will be contrary to the position you are interested in. That's OK, and actually healthy for WP, if the discussion is framed clearly, concisely and with objectivity.

Now, how to get started. I have found from experience in other RFCs that when the initiator of the RFC drafts the RFC first in their user space, the better the RFC is. Dumping an RFC on the community without having some prior review by knowledgable and interested parties generally results in some mis-communication and mis-understandings. All that can be avoided if the RFC is drafted first in the user space, getting a few expert eyeballs on it, and correcting it while in draft. Then when you do go live, you'll have a better RFC and will understand better what the proper venue is. So, I would encourage you to begin drafting the RFC in your user space. (and I'll be glad to help once I understand what the big questions are).

As for venue. If the RFC deals strictly with issues for a single article, then the article talk page would be the appropriate venue. If the issues involve a whole family of articles, then a project talk page or policy/guideline talk page might be the best venue. That decision can wait until the RFC draft is ready.

Hope this helps. Will be glad to look at anything you draft up and provide further advice as necessary. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

RMs: please take care with capitalisation
Hi Ictus. Your RM proposals are interesting and valuable; but I wish you would take more care with capitalisation. Of course the first letter is to be capped automatically, so show it that way (so editors are not distracted from what is important). And you seem to oscillate between "kabbalah" and "Kabbalah" (for example) in the text accompanying the RM. Leaving this for others to fix is not helpful. Capitalisation is a considered element in titles, not something automatic. Thanks! N oetica Tea? 02:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, checked with WP:RS for WP:CAPs and fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Of Valour
Discretion may well be the better part of valour, but a bottle of decent Cabernet is frequently the better half of indiscretion. PiCo (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus and edit warring
reply on user talk page Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotes
Please note this edit and this edit, where I fix quotes which you copied incomplete. Debresser (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very helpful. It happens. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am actually very proud of having noticed them and having taken the time to fix them. I just wanted to let you know. Debresser (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cover me (urban legend)
userfy the page or email a copy to you. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * fixed, connectivity problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Cover me (urban legend) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cover me (urban legend) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cover me (urban legend) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Geza Vermes
Interesting article PiCo (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Request
Hi In ictu: Why are you trying to force your Hebrew Christian sensibilities (based on your own editing record) on the Judaism editors? What would your reaction be if the Judaic editors were to invade the Hebrew-Christian articles and flood them with all sorts of moves, redirects and content without first seeking consensus in such sensitive terrain? You have made your points about "English ubber alles" now it's time for you to take a few steps back, see Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, and stop causing so much turmoil in every article with a Hebrew-sounding title you come across. The "sources" you keep on citing to back up your own POV only makes matters worse because you are twisting them to back up your own agenda. Please could you relax and try working on the Christian articles. There have been problems in the past when Hebrew Christian scholars and editors have gone on such sprees before but it only breeds resentment and animosity. I remain truly yours, IZAK (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello IZAK
 * There are a number of personal assumptions you're making which I won't address.
 * Back to the MOS:COMMONALITY and WP:naming conventions (use English) problems with the series of recent article creations at hand, there evidently is, today, a range of different Englishes in use in translation of the English Tanakh, Mishnah, Talmud, (and commentary and interpretation following) just as there are a range of different Englishes in use in the English Quran and the English New Testament (and commentary and interpretation following). And that range is illustrated in the Danby, Neusner, Steinsaltz and Schottenstein translations (and commentary and interpretation following).
 * That's one thing, but do any of these four translations have, for example, בית דין של כהנים, in romanization in Ketuboth 5. Do any of these four translations have ברב עם הדרת מלך  in romanization in Bikkurim? It's fine to translate articles from he.wikipedia into English, but to do so with no regard for academic, Reform Jewish, or even in this case no regard to even the English of Mesorah Publications, Ltd., not usual practice, as far as I can judge, on en.wikipedia.
 * Normally I don't think that people would consider that Adin Steinsaltz and Artscroll would be "twisting" or "going on a spree" etc. when they translate rather than romanize such terms.
 * There is nothing inherently hostile to Judaism (or indeed to Islam or Christianity) about the English language, or translations into English, which is why many English speakers make use of translations like an English Talmud
 * I have no axe to grind with anyone, I consider that WP policies and MOS are for the benefit of all Users, but if there are pockets of articles where these same WP policies and MOS are not welcome, then so be it. Life is short enough already. Take care. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi In ictu: thanks for your thoughtful response. I do not have enough time to respond in a way to do it justice. For now, take care and Shabbat Shalom, IZAK (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No need. I rather think you've already said enough with your "English ubber alles" comment to do your perspective on WP policy full justice. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No need. I rather think you've already said enough with your "English ubber alles" comment to do your perspective on WP policy full justice. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas cantata
Remembering Brunckhorst last year, you may want to add here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do ;) . Did S.D.G. too. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both! S.D.G. became an article that I can link, thanks to you! Christmas cantata appeared on the Main page twice yesterday, not that I wanted that but they were short of suitable nominations. We sang for Christmas Es ist ein Ros entsprungen, also, among others, Schütz "Jauchzet dem Herren" and Hummel Mass No 1, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Where to be an expat
Not Latvia: "What passes for day in January is a puddle of grey half-light between 10am and 3pm." Perhaps Bali. Would you recommend Bali? Bugger the bloody Judeo-Christians, give me sun and sin! PiCo (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Soli Deo Gloria
You with the Latin name, would you help to spread understanding for Latin grammar at that article (s. talk) - or rather avoid it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas
History2007 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Al Turath Ensemble (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Nay and Ud


 * Cobbe family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Arthur Wellesley and VC


 * Newbridge Estate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Newbridge and Hobbema


 * Charles Cobbe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Country Life

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Cobbe family
Edit reversed. The Cobbe family does not descend from Charles, he was a member of the family with many other Cobbe's all over Ireland before his own arrival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acamdc88 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Joseph Chabanceau de La Barre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Notre-Dame and La Barre


 * Anne Chabanceau de La Barre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to La Barre


 * Christmas cantata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Stradella


 * Josep Melcior Prat i Colom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to San Sebastian


 * Philipp Buchner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Wertheim

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)