User talk:Monosig

File permission problem with File:Erich Heckel, Zwei Frauen, 1923.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Erich Heckel, Zwei Frauen, 1923.jpg, which you've sourced to a private art collection. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We own the painting and I took the photo Monosig (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Bob Marley
Rita writes in her book "Bob wouldn't take no for an answer. He said to me, 'No, you're my wife and you're supposed to.' So he forced himself on me, and I call that rape. Afterwards I felt so terrible. I screamed at him, 'I hate you, I hate you!'"

She later questioned if it was actually a rape as at that time many people thought, indeed it was the law, that a man could not rape his wife. I hope we are all enlightened enough now to know that what happened was rape Unibond (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes we definitely are, and at the same time, that is most definitely not the issue. Read on (in the quoted article). Apparently Rita didn't mean it that way and wandered the streets of London agonizing about the statement and begging his forgiveness. Unless at least 30 explanatory words are added in the main Wikipedia article, the simplistic statement cannot stand as is. In view of later events, primarily Rita remaining not only remaining in the I-Threes but also becoming the main torch bearer of the Marley legacy (for 33 years now), the simplistic statement appears to be aggressively PC-POV. She even purchased Federal Studios and turned them into Tuff Gong Studios because of the insult that Bob received from Federal Studios in his lifetime. Whatever happened, happened in their bedroom, no third party was aware of it in real time and it was never reported until Rita wrote the book in which she "call(ed) it rape" (so at the most one could write - "forced himself on her, which in later years she characterized as rape") and subsequently regretted what she wrote. Being enlightened also dictates that we don't jump on a sporadic, doubtful reference and place it simplistically and without reservation in the subject's main Wikipedia article. Monosig (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, do you want to make the change or should I ? Unibond (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian territories
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Palestinian territories, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No original research, please.
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Demographics of Lebanon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. '' Please don't add more unsourced content to content already tagged as being unsourced. Please read WP:BURDEN.'' Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur 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/Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Mb66w (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of European Law Group for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European Law Group 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/European Law Group 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Mb66w (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Israel-beytenu-logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Israel-beytenu-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:SBGTNY.jpg


The file File:SBGTNY.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, I'm Robby.is.on. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Maor Buzaglo, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK done Monosig (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:ELG-logo.jpg


The file File:ELG-logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused logo file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. See Articles for deletion/European Law Group"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:SBGTYLogo-S.jpg


The file File:SBGTYLogo-S.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Golan Heights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kinneret ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Golan_Heights check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Golan_Heights?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harish ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Israel check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Israel?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source, deletion of sourced text, and breaking the link to the source
The source does not say " believes that the ark never existed under the northern Kingdom of Israel, but that elevated platform was constructed as a shrine to the story of the ark which remained under southern Judahite control in the Temple at Jerusalem." That's a complete misrepresentation. Deletion of one paragraph of sourced text (because evidently you think it's wrong) deleted the actual source entirely. It's a pretty serious thing to misrepresent a source - or to add your own analysis to sourced text. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree as a matter of principle, but let me just explain the issue. I know Finkelstein's work and opinions and the point that he's trying to make re Kiryat Yearim, which in his case often comes out backwards in "Hebrish", contradicting his meaning. Under the United Monarchy of Israel prior to King David's conquest of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, the Ark was in Kiryat Yearim https://goo.gl/maps/mLk3FhJpXdr1tBMi9. After the conquest and the building of the First Temple by King Solomon, it was installed in the Temple in the Holy of Holies and became the focus point of the Israelite proto-Jewish religion. After the division of the kingdom into the northern kingdom (Israel with its capital at Shomron/Samaria) and the southern kingdom (Judah with its capital at Jerusalem), the 10 northern tribes comprising the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) were thrown into a theological crisis. The centrality of Jerusalem came into question for political reasons, which bordered on heresy for some, particularly after the northern Omride dynasty built a "competing" temple at Shomron (the Sebastia site). According to the clearly Judahite author of the Bible, many North-Israelites even fell back into Baal-worshipping and paganism and virtually all the North-Israelite kings (such as Ahab) "did evil in the eyes of the Lord". The southernmost northern tribes such as Binyamin etc were particularly unhappy and some were loyal to Judah rather than Israel and continued to pilgrimage to Jerusalem. That is where Kiryat Yearim is (the southernmost tribes of the northern 10 tribes of Israel). Finkelstein's important point is that the Kiryat Yearim structure is a post-division North-Israelite one, not a United Monarchy one, so it has nothing to do with the fact that the Ark had been at Kiryat Yearim before it was moved to Jerusalem. It's a commemorative North-Israelite structure within the context of the northern 10 tribes "losing" Jerusalem and trying to deal with that for hundreds of years, until the destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians, the disappearance of the 10 tribes or their morphing into Samaritanism while the Judahites/Jews were in exile in Babylon. This is a vitally important point because anyone seeing the structure and connecting it with the Bible story, would naturally say that this is where the Ark rested for many years - however, Finkelstein says, it didn't, because this took place centuries beforehand. All this time the Ark is sitting happily within the Temple in Jerusalem in the heart of the Kingdom of Judah, which is the narrative relevant to the continuation of the history of the Judahites=Judeans=Jews, until the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians well over a century after the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians. But the existence of the Ark in the Temple in Jerusalem is not what Finkelstein is discussing at all, he is discussing the Kiryat Yearim structure and disproving the natural gut reaction that this was the resting place of the Ark back in David's days. The text I deleted was a caricature of all the above and was totally out of context in the opening paragraph, because it refers to the Kiryat Yearim structure, not to an entirely unconnected question which is whether the Ark, ostensibly safely ensconced in the Temple in Jerusalem a century or two earlier, was actually a legend or not. One can certainly discuss that hypothetical-theoretical question too (I don't know who has ever raised it with regard to the First Temple), but the Kiryat Yearim structure has absolutely no bearing on it and the Finkelstein quote simply cannot be inserted where it was. Monosig (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This belongs on the article talk page. Doug Weller  talk 17:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Guillaume de Nogaret. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.  You can bring this up on the talkpage, but a history channel show called "Knightfall" is not noteworthy in the context of Nogaret's significance Eric talk 02:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Violation of Discretionary sanctions
I see that you have gotten a Discretionary sanctions notices above. Those sanctions say (among other things) that editors must fulfil the 30/500 criteria in order to edit controversial topics in the I/P area. You do not fulfill those criteria, still you edit the Cave of the Patriarchs-article. If you do that again, expect to see yourself reported to WP:AE, Huldra (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? What "30/500 criteria", what "a Discretionary sanctions notices" (sic) and what's controversial about my edit which has absolutely nothing to do with the I/P area or the I/P dispute or any J/M dispute about holy places in I/P. My edit is obviously necessary, there's nothing controversial about it and has nothing to do with the site being in the I/P area. I suggest that you actually look at what I did before your little power urge overcame you, and then restore it. It's a dodgy reference with 2 sub-standard WWW links which actually don't belong in this article at all, but I left it in, in the main text (even if the references had been relevant and brilliant, they still had no textual place or context in the intro). It's immaterial if the site is in Palestine, Pakistan or Paraguay, it would be exactly the same and there's nothing "controversial" about the edit which has nothing to do with I/P as such. From looking at your talk page, the only thing that appears to be controversial is many of your edits. If you are here to sabotage other editors edits, then you might find *yourself* "reported to WP:AE". Please restore my edit. Monosig (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Discretionary sanctions notice" is what you got here: User_talk:Monosig. It will be assumed that you have read it after it was delivered to your talk-page. 30/500 refers to an editor must be registered for at least  30 days, and have at least 500 edits. Huldra (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * So I've been an editor since 2006 (almost 16 years) and how many edits do I have? Where does the 30/500 rule appear? I can't find it in the labyrinth you sent me. Meanwhile, would you kindly restore my uncontroversial edit, we are both just wasting our time here. Is your presence here about enriching Wikipedia or are you a one-issue editor with a different agenda and a slight POV-rules obsession, as your talk page and numerous disputes with other editors seem to indicate. Monosig (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, mea culpa, I thought you had less than 500 edits; I see now that I was wrong. So you did not violate Discretionary sanctions (see Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles): my apologies. I will not undo my edit though, that most historians think the story is mythological clearly belongs in the lead. I please don't personalise the disagreement, Huldra (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The reference is to Abraham etc in personam, not to the historical & Jewish-Muslim religious site. Therefore it appears to be over-POV of an uber-secular agenda. The fact is that "historians" haven't got a clue (there is no way that they could), and the actual links are of poor quality. "Most historians" is a unsubstantiated CNN-style POV neoligism, as you know, not worthy of Wikipedia. I recommend reading the Abraham article. His story is very detailed, the lifespans are obviously legend, the whole thing could be an invention or it could have a nucleus of truth about the biography of a Bedouin-type chieftain that came from Ur Casdim in Mesopotamia to Canaan and was remembered in real time and then embellished. The 400 silver shekel price is apparently supported by independent Uggarit sources and at the end of the day the tombs are there and have been since AD. As stated, the links are poor, even silly, they don't represent "most" of anything and they don't do credit to Wikipedia. Kindly revert. Sorry for the personal comments. Monosig (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that William G. Dever is a WP:RS; if you don't agree with "Most historians"; can you metion which  historian that disagree? Huldra (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I see that Israel Finkelstein calls Dever "a jealous academic parasite" and "a biblical literalist disguised as a liberal" but I will certainly investigate further. Once again, this relevant in personam, not to the CotP. Monosig (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I somehow doubt that a "Biblical minimalist" as Israel Finkelstein will be among the historians who think  differently. Again; please name your "some historians" which do not agree. In fact, that a person like  Dever  writes this, indicates  that historians disagreeing with the "Abraham-Isaac-Jacob narrative to be primarily mythological" must be a rather fringe group. And since the importance of the Cave of the Patriarchs rests mainly on the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob narrative, it clearly belong in the lead, Huldra (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you could get out of your Pavlovian rut for a second before replying, after thinking about it you would probably agree that no historian could possibly hold any opinion on the subject. It's an early pre-Levantine recorded history Biblical story and Abraham's goats and tents wouldn't have left archeological remains. It could be total fiction or could be partly true to the same extent. The comment in the context of the physical site is superfluous (normally served by "believed by Jews and Muslims to be..." etc within the main text), I didn't delete it, only moved it, and after this exhausting argumentative discussion has played out, I will move it again. Monosig (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * pre-Levantine-recorded-history Monosig (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? we just listed a historian who has an opinion about it? And please; WP:NPA Huldra (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ...which reflects more on that historian than on the matter under discussion. Do you have a personal opinion on my statement "no historian could possibly hold any opinion on the subject. It's an early pre-Levantine recorded history Biblical story and Abraham's goats and tents wouldn't have left archeological remains. It could be total fiction or could be partly true to the same extent"? Of course you don't have to continue this conversation if you don't want to! Lastly, the WP:NPA bar is apparently much lower than in the UK Parliament or in an Oxford debating society, my Wiki experience has been much more acidic, but I will do my best. Monosig (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * .....LOl; I have seen some of the (more heated) debates in the UK Parliament; and I don't think such behaviour would be tolerated here. (Don't worry; I have a rather thick skin after 16+ years here. Just "tackle the ball, not the man" (or in this case: the woman)) As for what is under discussion; wp goes by what WP:RS, -and the biblical history is not a RS for anything -except for what the Bible says. (Incidentally; they have been trying for 100-200 years to find proof of the Battle of Jericho; none has been found. I believe present belief is that the Bible (or rather: the writers of it) just appropriated the history of the earlier Egyptian campaign as their own.) Making up a grand/heroic/ancient past is a rather common, it seems; see eg Privilegium Maius for the Habsburgs) cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The Bible (Old Testament) has entirely different periods spanning approximately 1,000 years. Certainly the mythological period - pre-1000-900 BC, approximately - is not a reference source and has little or no external verification, except in rare occasions such as the Ten Plagues & Santorini eruption or Merneptah Stele. But then, when the narrative continues after 1000-900 BC, it is increasingly supported by external and archeological evidence - Lachish, Sebastia, Khirbet Qeiyafa, First Temple Jerusalem, Assyrian bragging steles etc. The Egyptian pharaohs, the Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians existed, they did what they did, and the Old Testament version of history - now devoid of miracles, conversations with God etc - dovetails with researched history and is a documentary source as reliable or unreliable as any other. The obsessive disqualification of the Old Testament's later, detailed historical narrative is primarily a result of the secular-religious divide - because of the Bible's significance for religions and the unpopularity of dogmatic Bible-based religiosity - and, since the mid-20th century, Middle East politics. Neither are relevant to the historical reliability or non-reliability of any specific, late-Biblical narrative. Abraham belongs entirely to the mythological period, of course, but because the basic narrative is largely reasonable, from Ur Casdim to Canaan and from there to Egypt (barring conversations with God, God telling him to sacrifice his son and the ridiculous biological life spans), one can take him or leave him.


 * The New Testament is a completely different discussion altogether and I am not referring to that discussion here (although the discussion is fascinating). But I'm just pointing the fact out, because of the use of the "Bible" word which means different things to different people. For context, the NT is basically a faith-based biography of a single person spanning barely five years (one year at the beginning of his life and approx 4 years at its end) in a fully documented general-history period.


 * Lastly, in my humble opinion the increasingly doctrinaire codification of Wikipedia dogma and obsessive rule-making is starting to resemble the Council of Nicaea. A vast body of legitimate, reliable information is being barred from the Wikipedia corpus because the work of occasional editors is barred by the Wikipedia orthodox-dictatorial hierarchy which has developed over the past decade and created a preposterously dogmatic and presumptious rules codex. Remember how all this started when we only had Britannica's professional editors, keep an open mind and prevent POV-opinionated active or blocking editing of all kinds! Monosig (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is: Wikipedia demands WP:RS. (Don't shoot me: I'm only the messenger!) And WP:RS here would be modern historians/archeologists etc. Did you find a modern source which disagree with William G. Dever on the issue? Huldra (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Petah Tikva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Line.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

April 2024
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Herod the Great, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu Really. What information was incorrect? As I recall, the article was incorrect and did not distinguish between Herod the Great and his son, the Galilean tetrarch mentioned in the New Testament. Monosig (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Jesus wasn't born in 1 BC, nor in 1 AD, nor in the phony year zero. He was probably born circa 4 BCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu In that case Jesus was born in the same year that Herod the Great died and the Herod mentioned during Jesus's adult lifetime was his son Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee. The fact is that geographical Judea was placed under direct Roman rule with a governor (Pontius Pilate). Monosig (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The rub was . tgeorgescu (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What an overreaction then to what at the most needed a minor edit (which you could have done in 10 seconds). There doesn't seem to be any clear determination of when Jesus was born; the reasoned calculation here says 2 BCE, this article ranges from 6 BC to 1 AD and the various censuses and Herod the Great's death are all over the place. The point is that - contrary to popular belief - the New Testament "Herod" is Herod Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee, not Herod the Great, the Jewish-Idumean Roman-client king of all Israel/political Judaea, including geographic Judea, Idumea, the Galilee, Samaria, the maritime plain etc. So when Jesus was born, Herod the Great was either dead or died soon after. Monosig (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)