User talk:Woscafrench

Welcome To Wikipedia
Welcome! Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this:. Four tildes ( ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Ultimate Star Wars Freak 11:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isaiah 53, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roman, Babylonian and Assyrian. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

August 2016
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Linux kernel does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! RezonansowyakaRezy (talk &#124; contribs) 12:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability
Do read WP:VER and obey it! That's what "verifiability" means for Wikipedia. If you change referenced information ever again you will be reported at WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Impenitent thief. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please don't threaten me for disagreeing with you. I linked to a prexisting wikipedia page, that is not original research and for you to claim that it is very dishonest of you. Woscafrench (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:CIRCULAR: Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. We have rules for editing, it's not bad that you don't know the rules, but you should be willing to learn them. More at Talk:Impenitent thief. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a verifiable source and you deleted it which was hypocritical of you. My source wasn't wikipedia, it was a former Bishop of the Church of England. Are you not worried I might report you for your aggressive behaviour? Woscafrench (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I explained you about WP:VER three times (in three places) before giving the above warning. How many times do I have to explain that to you before you get it? Let me make it very clear: in by far the most situations Wikipedia cannot be a source for Wikipedia. Do also read what I wrote at Talk:Impenitent thief. The gist is: if you don't edit by Wikipedia rules, you will be blocked by admins. There are certain edits that are wholeheartedly allowed, while other edits are considered nefarious. Also, you have inserted your own personal opinion in the article and that's not done. I guess that for you the Bible is holy. Well, for Wikipedia the mainstream academic view is holy and it should be respected in all circumstances. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See?
 * Is a verifiable reference to a reliable source.
 * John Robertson
 * Isn't a verifiable reference to a reliable source. Got it now? Also, Robinson's view is a minority view, see WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:PROPORTION. It is also outdated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not explained anything to me. Is your problem with the source I provided that that I provided a link to the wikipedia page about the book, rather than a link to the book itself? Woscafrench (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First, the cited source is too old and it is a minority view, so it should not be cited anyway. Second, yes, in general, you have to cite specific pages of a book/article, instead of linking to other Wikipedia articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way is it "too old"? Does being more than a decade or two old make a book ineligible to be used as a source in wikipedia? Woscafrench (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See Identifying reliable sources (history). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't quite answer my question there, could you please try again? Woscafrench (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Robinson's view did not stick in mainstream scholarship. It is therefore outdated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This view appears to be original research on your part. I could not find it in the source you cited Woscafrench (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You want to cite it, you have the WP:BURDEN to show that is accepted by a large part of mainstream Bible scholars. I.e. despite Ehrman's statement about almost universal assent for the gospels being written some decades after the death of Jesus. Does Robinson's view pass the WP:CHOPSY test? I guess not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to cite it. You made me cite it after refusing to accept (the undeniable truth) that there is no way of knowing when the New Testament was written. Are you not even a little interested in the truth of that claim? Rather than just parroting someone else's opinions? Robinson was a lecturer at Cambridge, so I imagine his views would pass the WP:CHOPSY test. Woscafrench (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We speak about what is taught as fact at CHOPSY now, not 40 years ago. Here we are not interested about WP:THETRUTH, see WP:VNT. All we do around here is "parroting someone else's opinions". If you don't like this, leave. This whole website is a huge appeal to authority, nothing else. Wikipedia is only interested in editors' competence to cite reliable sources for verifying information. Wikipedia is not meant for venting your opinion or my opinion or another editor's opinion. It is only meant to render what has been published in reliable sources, and all this according to WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:FRINGE and so on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We speak about what is taught as fact at CHOPSY now, not 40 years ago. Here we are not interested about WP:THETRUTH, see WP:VNT. All we do around here is "parroting someone else's opinions". If you don't like this, leave. This whole website is a huge appeal to authority, nothing else. Wikipedia is only interested in editors' competence to cite reliable sources for verifying information. Wikipedia is not meant for venting your opinion or my opinion or another editor's opinion. It is only meant to render what has been published in reliable sources, and all this according to WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:FRINGE and so on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as 'originale investigationis'."

- WP:FLAT


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I should also remind you of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Pontius Pilate
See Sockpuppet investigations/Herbert McCallum. I've been dealing with this person for the past few days, and is obviously a sock of them. As such, all edits by them should be reverted on sight, per WP:BLOCKEVASION; this includes edits to talk pages. It would also be wise for you to see WP:DNFTT if you haven't already. Sky Warrior  14:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is probably a sock puppet who is not adding anything valuable, and if their accounts are banned for that reason that seems fair enough. In the case of their edit to the talk page I think chastising them there for wasting people's time with a joke no-one was laughing at would do more to defuse the situation than just deleting the comment and waiting for them to come back. Woscafrench (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Ipuwer
I apologise for reverting your reversion of my deletion of the Ipuwer papyrus, but I promise it will get a mention, along with things like the Apiru and the tempest stele. PiCo (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Cubic honeycomb
I am genuinely curious how you happened across an edit I made nine months ago on a page that has had well over 100 edits since then. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was reading the article, and then I suddenly thought to myself "this is an obscure article - I wonder if I've heard of anyone who's edited it?". And yes - Tomruen's name came up a lot, I went further back in the articles history to find someone other than Tomruen and I saw your username and it rang a bell and I noticed you'd reverted a good faith edit with no explanation and marked it as a minor edit. For some reason that gets under my skin - I've grumbled before about it. But you needn't worry as I'm currently aiming to get my mainspace edits back up to a respectable 70%, so I'm not planning on stirring up discontent on any more talk pages for the near future.


 * Just so we're all on the same page, a few days ago when I first saw what happened to Fmadd, I was so indignant I broke my fast and left a message on the talk page of the sockpuppeteer template page: Template_talk:Sockpuppeteer. My revert of you was perhaps a little cheeky as it technically counts as a mainspace edit, so it was helping me towards my 70% target. Woscafrench (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary
What is this supposed to mean? Do you not understand the purpose of the edit? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. No I do not really understand the purpose of your edit. Did you read the article before you edited it? You mass edited so many articles in such a short period of time, that I think the answer to that question is "no". One of the reasons you cited for making your change was a suggestion that the language was editorialising, but that suggestion doesn't seem to match the text you edited. The edits in your editing spree were so similar, it made me wonder if you were running a script of some sort to do it. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 12:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, not running a script. It's pretty easy to do a search for articles with that phrase, find it in the article, and reword it properly. And how does my edit not perfectly match my edit summary? Did you click on either of the links in my edit summary (one is to an essay; the other to an MOS)? I can't imagine that you did otherwise it would make perfect sense. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit you made was to remove the bracketed part of this sentence:
 * While this is the standard usage of the term "normalizer" in Lie algebra, [it should be noted that] this construction is actually the idealizer of the set S in $\mathfrak{L}$
 * Your edit summary did not match, as there was no editorialising in that sentence, or at least any editorialising that was done was entirely legitimately trying to explain the subject mater, rather than pushing some POV. That being said, I think I reverted you prematurely and should have just left a note on your talk page as I've come round to your edit since I first saw it. The "it should be noted that" was a bit redundant considering that the sentence began "While". However, doing a quick check of a few of your other edits, I quickly found a couple which have obscured the meaning of the sentence for no gain at all, here and here. That last edit completely failed to spot the sort of original research that I think the manual of style was warning you to look out for! Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 14:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to agree to disagree as it doesn't look like you're comprehending it. If I happen to spot another issue as I am making those changes, I will, but OR is generally not something I'm looking for. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that was an OK comment on your part? If so, can you please explain why do you think any of the users you mentioned "defends the Nazis"? My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing God from the Bible
Hi W. I should explain what I mean by conservative Christians (and Jews) removing God from the Old Testament/Tanakh. I mean that they turn everything into history. At the extreme (and I'm not saying this is your position), they say that God created the world 6000 years ago over a period of 6 days because that's what the Bible says. They're right, it does, but those who tell them they're wrong because this contradicts science are also wrong. It's wrong not because it contradicts science (or rather, is contradicted by science) but because it ignores the intention of the passage, which is about God's plans for Israel. In other words, Genesis 1-2 and the biblical chronology are statements about God, not about the world.

Less extreme conservatives will allow that Genesis 1-2 can be read in ways that accommodate modern science, but still hold that the rest of Genesis and the Exodus story are real history. This is very difficult to argue these days, and only a few respectable scholars will do so (Hoffmeier and Kitchen, most notably). Their essential position is a Christian one: Jesus, a man, was also God, appearing in history; the Old Testament records that history, and must therefore be accurate, or else the New Testament record of Jesus as Christ cannot be trusted. So they reserve their theology for the Resurrection, and reduce the Exodus to reportage.

But the Tanakh is a Jewish book, not a Christian one. The article on the Exodus, for example, has a grotesquely long section about the historicity of the Exodus, because that's what interests Christian - the historical reality of the Exodus guarantees the historical reality of the Resurrection and the Christ-hood of Jesus. It's not really about that at all, it's about God's revelation of himself to Israel and his strength and faith with them. I'd like to get rid of that section, but I can't (despite what you might think, I don't always have my way on these articles). I'd like to see much more on what Exodus and the law codes and the rest tell us about God and his care for Israel, but very few Wikipedia editors share such concerns.

As for the article Yahweh, the etymology of the name is a red herring, like the historicity of the Exodus. Christians and Christian-influenced Jews (they don't even realise they're influenced by Christian theology) think it matters if YHWH is derived from a verbal root meaning existence because (they believe) this demonstrates that YHWH/God is creator of the universe (although "I am that I am" isn't a statement of creation). Quite possibly they're right, quite possibly it is derived from such a root, as Frank Moore Cross first theorized (that's in our article), but it doesn't matter: what really matters is that YHWH both was and is the strength and hope of Jewish people through all their history.

I'm tired of Wikipedia, honestly. PiCo (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi PiCo. Just to recap: on Talk:Yahweh you appeared to say at one point that you wanted to put God back into the Bible, which I asked you about, and you have responded to that here. I haven't replied for four months, since I'm still not quite able to piece together what you're saying. For example, I don't understand why you think that Christians would care about the historicity of the Exodus whereas Jews wouldn't, I also can't see how someone could argue that the origin of YHWH's name "demonstrates that YHWH/God is creator of the universe". It may be the case you have some religious insight that I lack. Woscafrench (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

June 2019
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is locked, please contact. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: .Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Hello I am the user that created this account. I can email some ID to an administrator if that would help? Would be the right address for that? Woscafrench (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think so; that address is just for if your account is globally locked, which yours isn't. If there's a current admin that you know who can vouch for you, emailing them would be good, I think. I can also ask a checkuser to check your account, though I don't know how helpful that might be. I know the guidance is that compromised accounts are *usually* not unblocked; if you want, I can remove the account creation block, and you can create a new account and use that. I also know that losing one's edit history hurts, though, so I'm open to seeing what can be done; I know it's not unprecedented for a compromised account to get unblocked, once it's recovered.
 * Just so I'm clear, though: this account was compromised, correct? These edits, made almost a year after the previous edits on this account, suggest so. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I made those two edits. I think the IP of the first one would be the same IP for many of my edits last year if that is evidence of some sort for a checkuser? I'll try to see if there's an administrator who I can send an email to. Woscafrench (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. They were pretty weird-looking edits, if you'll excuse my saying so; the one on Gråbergs Gråa Sång's talk page raised particular alarms, given that we deal with a lot of "subscribe to PewDiePie" nonsense from one-off vandals. That, plus the time gap between those and your last edits, is why I thought the account was compromised. Anyway, I'm happy to admit that I was wrong and apologize, and I'll unblock your account. Before I do, though, do you mind explaining a little bit about those edits? Not like an unblock request or anything, I'll unblock regardless; I'm still just wondering about the edits. Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Woscafrench has posted a comment on my talk page before, a few years ago. Tho I don't recall any other interaction, the name does seem familiar. hmmmmm... nope, I've had a think and still can't recall anything else.  Possibly some ANI thread?  But anyway, every rational person loves me.  So that's not worrying.  I do share a concern about the post on User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, tho.  That seems like trolling, or making threats, or loonieness, or bringing off-wiki disputes on-wiki, or ... something not good. GGS seems to be undistrubed by it, but that kind of post should not happen again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

- I have evidence to prove that I am Woscafrench, but I have not been able to find an administrator who is willing to look at it. Would you be willing for me to email you it? I appreciate you may be busy right now, I can wait until you get back. Woscafrench (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can mail it. You may need to turn on WP email so you can do it thru Special:Emailuser/Floquenbeam. Not sure what kind of evidence would prove this, but I'll take a look if you're in no rush. , from your comment above, it seems like if I believe this is the same person, you're OK with an unblock; is that still true?  *Iff* that's the case, my inclination would be to formalize their assurance that they will not mention or interact with Gråbergs Gråa Sång as an unblock condition. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yessss...I'm okay with that. Honestly, I'm a bit puzzled about this whole thing; my gut (very tentatively) says unblock, but I trust Yunshui as a general rule, so I didn't really want to go against their judgment, especiqllu when I'm not particularly confident in my own. I also trust you, though, so if you're good for an unblock once you get the email, so am I. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblock
With the OK of the blocking admin, I'm unblocking you based on the private evidence you sent me, which convinces me you are the original owner of this account. However, this unblock is contingent on a 1-way interaction ban with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. See WP:IBAN for details. That post to their talk pge was too disturbing to me to allow it to slide; I don't understand what is going on (and don't want to!), but it is not going to come up here anymore. You indicated above you were OK with this (although at the time I don't think I'd raised the possibility of making it a condition of your unblock). Give me a sec to dot the i's and cross the t's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Woscafrench (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Scope of the Yahweh article
The article Yahweh does not cover modern conceptions of God in Judaism; it does cover the ancient god of early Israel and Judah. Unless you have a source on a pagan/polytheist renaissance in Israel, we should not say that the Yahweh from the article is still worshipped today. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It's literally the same name. Woscafrench (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2022 (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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)