User talk:Nameshmame

Welcome

 * }

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

In response to your feedback
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback and thank you for your contributions! For more help on getting started, please look at Help desk and the help pages.

 Hazard-SJ  ✈   04:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Reference errors on 11 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I think I fixed this. Thanks.Nameshmame (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Anne Dangar page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=685263157 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F685263157%7CAnne Dangar%5D%5D Ask for help])

Adam and Eve
Article talk pages aren't for tangential discussions, but for discussing how to improve the article. There is no point in discussing a change that was already made almost a year ago. You may be interested in reading more on the topic in The Lost World of Adam and Eve by John H. Walton, pp. 58-62. An older book also explains about the use of the definite article. This author explains how how ha-'adam can be either male or generic, and states that no exegete concludes that Adam alone was expelled from the garden; ie., in Gen. 3:24 the word refers not to one specific man but to the humans. YoPienso (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "There is no point in discussing a change that was already made almost a year ago."
 * Italic textIf it is incorrect there is a point in discussing it.
 * Then you directed me to a text dealing with the interpretation of the text. So is your decision relying on a Wikipedia rule about the length of time since the change was made, or are you arguing that your source is correct about the wording?  I don't find either argument satisfactory. You can't change the wording of the Bible because you think it makes more sense your way.Nameshmame (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind my threading the discussion.
 * To make italic text, you just put two single quote marks before and after the text. Like this. (You can see when you edit the page.) Be careful to make two single marks and not one double mark ".
 * It's inappropriate for us to discuss a moot point on the article talk page. I understand you objected to the wording "the humans." Since that wording has been changed, there's no point in discussing it, unless you're objecting to the word "them" instead of "him." If that's your objection, yes, my sources are correct about the wording. You are relying on an English translation, and I assume you are not a Hebrew scholar.
 * There's no Wikipedia rule about length of time--I'm saying "the humans" has already been changed, so why discuss it? Regards, YoPienso (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay you're one of those editors. I know better than to continue this dispute with you. "Regards."Nameshmame (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your italics instructions don't work either.Nameshmame (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two ways to create italics.
 * You can highlight the text and click on the I button at the top left-hand corner of the editing box. It's immediately to the right of the B, which makes bold text.
 * But all that button does is put two single apostrophe marks before and after the text, which you can do manually. To make two single apostrophe marks, leave your keyboard in lower case and hit the apostrophe key. A single stroke looks like ', but you need to make two of them before the text you want to italicize and two of them after the text you want to italicize. Edit this page and look at how I italicized the word "single."
 * This page explains how to indent/thread a discussion. You can click on WP:THREAD at the top of that page for more info and examples. Or you could just notice how I've used colons in this discussion. ::: Regards, YoPienso (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This page is helpful for italicizing and bolding and other functions. This one is a general tutorial with several topics, including the formatting I just linked to. God bless, YoPienso (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've posted the following three times on the Adam and Eve talk page. PiCo repeatedly deletes it. I just want a record of it. "Scholarship on the sources/composition of the Pentateuch has moved on quite a bit since 1986." Is this your opinion? "The quasi-consensus on the documentary hypothesis's collapsed." Do you have a source to that effect? Finally, as to the claim that the dating of the P source comes down to some guy with a discredited theory (according to you). There was a substantial amount of internal evidence in favor of a more ancient date. This evidence embraces even certain passages in the ritualistic Book of Leviticus. "When we re-examine, for instance, the genealogies of the patriarchs before the Flood (cf. v), the style and approach are unmistakably P's, yet the material has to be derived from ancient data. The same applies to the Edomite lists in ch. xxxvi.  Just so--to stray for a moment from the Book of Genesis--the census records in Num xxvi, although again set down by P, deal with names and situations (notably the distribution of land holdings by lot) that go back of necessity to the early stages of the Israelite settlement in Canaan.  At the same time, there are other passages throughout the Tetrateuch that are undoubtedly much later.  All this testifies to a wide coverage by P, ranging over many centuries.  The conclusion that is usually drawn from these facts is that we have before us a series of separate P documents, as many as ten according to some critics.  But such solutions fail to account for the prevailing uniformity in outlook and phraseology which typifies P as a whole." Now don't give me any more of your scholarly-sounding excuses unless you can cite sources. Nameshmame (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC) If I weren't familiar with the Wikipedia crowd I'd be surprised that you got yourself in a tizzy and deleted this last post immediately after I published it. If you had a fraction of the faith you claim to have you would not be afraid of this discussion. Nameshmame (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)