User talk:Alephb/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Alephb. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hello, Alephb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Thanks! I'll try to keep all those guidelines in mind. Feel free to let me know if I step out of bounds somehow. Alephb (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Alephb: Thank you for the re-edit and constructive criticism. That was my first edit, and your comment has helped me understand how to properly operate here. -- Dirtlover883 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I got reverted a couple of times at first. Basically, Wikipedia policies include an addiction to citing sources. If you stick around -- and we hope you do -- a really good way I've found to get sources involves making searches in google books. Then when you find what you're looking for, you copy the google books url you've found and past it into this nifty tool and it'll do a good bit of the tedious citing work for you [1]. Also, if you want to read up on Wikipedia's ideas about what constitutes a reliable source, see here [2]. If you're looking to make an edit that represents the views of more conservative scholars, I've seen a lot of citations to the works of Kenneth Kitchen on Wikipedia. I haven't read him myself, and I can't say for sure citations to him would be left alone here, but in a lot of cases they've been allowed to stand. By the way, there's huge blocks of Wikipedia material out there that have uncited content, if you're looking for something to do. A lot of my edits focus on adding references. I've you've got any questions about how that's done, feel free to let me know. Happy hunting!Alephb (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: Recently some editor dumped a bunch of helpful content onto my talk page (the chart above). It's been helpful to me as I look up policies and such. If you want me to copy that chart onto your talk page for future reference, let me know and I'll put it there.Alephb (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Personal statistics? Doug Weller talk 11:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have, maybe half an hour ago. Are you some kind of mind-reader or something? But I'm not sure what to make of it, and I'm not sure how exactly I'd go about getting one or more of those templates to work on my page. I very briefly monkeyed around with this one [3], but I'm not sure how to get it to show my stats specifically. I messed around with computers a bit ten years or so ago, so some of this markup-language business intuitively makes sense to me, but in other ways I am way out of my depth with this fancy computer stuff. I actually took the little Wikipedia adventure beginner adventure game the other week and learned some stuff, so in some ways, I'm very new.Alephb (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alephb - in the future please feel free to just go ahead and revert that revision. Much of the work of established Wiki editors is "keeping the wolves at bay" and 99X's out of 100, IP editors do not add substantial/helpful edits to Wikipedia. This is obviously a generalization, but its held true in my experience. I'm not on a lot, but if you have any questions about do's and don't's on Wiki, I can try and help you out. The vast number of established Wiki editors are polite and helpful, but be prepared for those who are single-minded and don't care about your opinion. They make "enjoying Wikipedia" a chore sometimes... Ckruschke (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for the advice. I'm just starting to realize the sheer volume of unhelpful material that comes out of the unregistered IP world. In the future I think my policy will be this: I'll be happy to explain myself if asked, but when dealing with a non-helpful edit from an IP address, I'll probably revert first with a brief edit summary, and then only explain myself in depth if anyone objects. Since I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedia's culture, I was trying to err a bit on the side of polite explanation. But on the other hand, I'll produce a lot less useful work if I write entire policy-based essays every time an IP address makes a non-productive edit. Of course, for those people who do happen to use IP addresses and make productive edits, I'm glad they're here.Alephb (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: I think I'm supposed to mention your username when I respond to something you say, so here it is, User:Ckruschke. Alephb (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes - when you put my name in any post, I get a notice whether it's a talk page or in an edit comment.

My policy is to "watch" every page that I'm interested in/knowledgeable of the content and setup Wikipedia to automatically make me watch any page I edit. Then if down the road a page that I don't know much about gets an annoying level of edits that I don't care about, I just click the "star" and take it off my watch list. I also have my link on my computer setup to take me to my Watchlist so that I can quickly scan for activity and my Watchlist setup to show all recent activity. One thing you have to watch out for is if a number of people edit a page in a row, you'll only see the last one so it's possible that some stuff will sneak through. Just means you need to be extra vigilant on pages that not many people frequent. As far as anon editors go, your plan to simply revert with a simple explanation is a winner. 99X's out of 100, you'll never hear from that anon again. If that person comes back and gives "actual" reasons for the edit, that's when you get into the dialogue. Then there are those people who continually revert your revert and then you get into the 3X rule and that's when you take it to either that person's Talk or the page Talk and sort it out.

So like I said earlier, if you ever have any questions or cries for help, let me know and I'll do what I can. Ckruschke (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Aaron page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello.  I notice you have familiarity with Hebrew and an interest in certain ancient texts.  I thank you for your assistance here and improvement to the article.  I have made some similar questions on a few other talk pages.  These may or may not be issues with which you can assist.  If you have some spare time, please check out the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.  Thanks in advance, allixpeeke (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't guarantee I'll get to all of those real soon, but thank you for bringing them to my attention. Those all look like pretty worthwhile questions. Alephb (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

One option which might be of some use in detrermining articles on sections of books of the Bible might be to go to the various reference works related to the Bible and see what if any specifically named articles or article sections they have related to a given book of the Bible. Particularly if there are at least two substantial articles or sections of articles related to a given chapter or perhaps further subdivision, that might be an indication that there is enough notability and maybe content on that topic for a separate article here. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That might work. My main concern isn't the existence of these marginally-notable articles, it's the fact that they've been systematically turned into borderline-plagiaristic copies of work of eighteenth-century preachers. Alephb (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of minor biblical tribes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maon. 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) 10:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

All right. Problem solved. Alephb (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I imagine you'd like to comment on: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iikss. It seems to be strongly connected with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_weight. Thanks! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 09:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, User:Nicnote. Alephb (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if you searched for Thiele and chronology within our articles you'd find other articles saying his chronology is accepted - which I agree is dubious. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, plenty of people think Thiele did good work. I'd have no objection to something like "widely accepted." I read Thiele's Mysterious Numbers as an undergrad and used it in the best paper I ever wrote applied his ideas about the time of Pekah to an obscure verse in Isaiah. You'd think Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings would be the title of something kooky, but I love love love me some Thiele. He's my favorite chronology guy on the kings of Israel. I like Thiele more than the scholarly community does. But he's not quite "the definitive" (full stop) chronology. It's not at all the case that scholars have just decided that the questions of chronology end with Thiele (some evangelical scholars have, mostly because if you presuppose that all the biblical numbers are correct Thiele is about as good as it gets). If it's necessary I could dig up a bunch of scholars who express skepticism about him. Alephb (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure you know almost infinitely more about him than I do! All I really know is from reading our articles. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's reached the point where a lot of it is fuzzy. I don't remember all the individual details, but I remember methodology. I wouldn't consider myself a Thiele expert, but about eight years ago I knew Mysterious Numbers inside and out. I wouldn't necessarily trust Thiele to be right on all the individual dates, mind you. There's just not enough outside confirming evidence. It's just that, if you want to create a coherent chronology out of the biblical data for Judah and Israel, he's done a bang-up job at giving it a go. Alephb (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too but am on the way out the door. I'll probably block later if no one beats me to it. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Badlapur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Congress Party. 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) 09:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. A POV warrior (Seraphim System) removed a sourced paragraph. Could you please add the following opinion of a Sudanese human rights activist in the section Israel and the apartheid analogy#By others:

Sudanese human rights activist Simon Deng, writing for the Gatestone Institute, has criticized Desmond Tutu for referring to Israel as an apartheid state, stating that Arabs in Israel enjoy a variety of rights that blacks in apartheid-era South Africa did not, including the right to vote, and that Palestinians are only stopped at checkpoints to prevent attacks. Deng asks why Tutu criticizes Israel for apartheid policies it does not have, but ignores what Deng believes to be actual apartheid practices in other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and especially his own country Sudan (Bishop Tutu and "Israeli Apartheid")

He's no less "expert" than Naomi Klein and other individuals in the 'support' section. Thank you very much.--200.82.107.184 (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you User:Newer wiki?Alephb (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Alephb

More specifically, are you this user: [[4]]?Alephb (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Were you able to download the original 1658 version of Ussher's Annals of the World per the revised instructions I gave at User talk:Joe Kress#Ussher? — Joe Kress (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Alephb, I commend you over your work in ancient place names and their modern identification. I noticed where you added the modern-day identification for No, in Egypt, in the article, List of biblical names starting with N, and I just wanted you to know that there is a dispute between the ancient recorders of history and our modern-day historical geographers. According to Jewish tradition, No is identified with Alexandria, in Egypt. See: Jonathan ben Uzziel's Aramaic Targum on Ezekiel 30:14; Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi (RADAK) on Ezekiel 30:14, et al. Jewish tradition differs from the modern identification of this place name, or else there may have simply been two cities by the name of No in ancient Egypt, just as we find today with many other ancient cities. As you have correctly noted, modern historical geographers place No with the ancient city of Thebes, in Egypt. I'm not sure that there is a place to make mention of this distinction, say, in a footnote in that article, but I do think it would be fair to people of broad minds and broad interests, who wish to see the variant sources and variant views in the field of historical geography.Davidbena (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Instead of breaking up the smooth simplicity of the list by adding a discussion, I'd add an entry for "No" to the List of minor biblical places, which in turn links out to both No and Thebes. Then I'll redirect the link to List of minor biblical places#No.

As far as I can remember, everybody seems to identify "No" and "No-amon" as the same place, so I'll give them a combined slot unless you know of a source that distinguishes between "No" and "No-Amon." Alephb (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

All right. It's done. I've left the note very short for the moment, but if you or anyone else wants to expand it, it might be worth noting that the modern identification of No as Thebes bumps up against the problem that Nahum 3 seems to have in mind a location next to the sea, while Thebes is nowhere near any sea. Alephb (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, as I very gradually work my way through the list of biblical names, I've mostly been using the first good source I find, if it gives a location and doesn't express any doubt. Given enough time, it would be good if me or someone else could go through again and double-check them all to make sure there aren't alternative explanations getting missed. An eye over the shoulder is always appreciated. Alephb (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree to that. As it is, I am also very busy with other things. Shabbat Shalom.Davidbena (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Shabbat shalom. Alephb (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Amalek. Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Alephb (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I was just looking at those diffs superficially this morning. But at least at that level of detail, it certainly appears that you're right in general. (In fact, I think I only found one spot where I think the IP had a case.)

Now, I don't know if I want to dive into that mess or not. But I don't know why you don't go to the administrators on Wikisource and ask them to rein in this IP. The name calling and verbal abuse you're receiving are certainly inappropriate, and if that IP cannot be civil, s/he has no business being there. I'm an admin on three wikis, and I would have blocked someone for such behavior long ago. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, User:StevenJ81. I did go to the admins. I was told to try to talk it out, and to seek third opinions. However, given the sheer volume of the IP's first posts, I imagine that would look like a fifty-way conversation, so that's going to be difficult. So that's what I'm up to. The conversation at their ANI is here [5]. The admin seemed concerned that he and most Wikisource editors didn't have the necessary knowledge to understand the issues involved, and suggested I get someone else involved.

If you don't want to get into the thick of the talk pages themselves, a note at the ANI board linked to above, confirming that I really am dealing with someone who is being unreasonable both on substance and tone might be helpful.

Honestly, I really wouldn't be surprised if the IP had a case on a few things. S/he is clearly bright, but just can't be bothered to learn anything about biblical Hebrew and is convinced that s/he can simply reconstruct it all based on gut feeling via an "instinctive" knowledge of modern Hebrew.

Thanks for taking the look, and if you want to stay uninvolved, I understand.Alephb (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm mostly not going to jump in on content. But I did drop a note at s:WS:AN#Hostile IP. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate having a second pair of eyes on the issue. Alephb (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:David - you're messing w/ conventions that are widely accepted across the board. I don't mean the idea the biblical narrative is fact, I mean the idea these dates are reliable. Time and time again on other pages people have lost arguments about dating because of the sources used to cite them. These sources you removed w/o consensus, and if they work everywhere else, there's no reason they wouldn't work here. You don't get to break convention just because you find the evidence "murky". People think the world is flat, but that doesn't stop it from being round. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@BedrockPerson:, in light of WP:CENT, I request that you keep this conversation centralized at Talk:David, where Jytdog first began the conversation, and where I've contributed. If you dislike an edit I've made, me and Jytdog have already starting discussing this very issue at the appropriate talk page, along with another editor, so I'm not going to respond to the accusations you're making on this page. Alephb (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You reverted 81.100.25.101 there, just letting you know he's an EddieDrood sock, editor known for falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references. See this talk page, IP is linked at the bottom. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Alephb (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have reverted some of your most recent edits on Abimelech (Judges). My reason is the excessive use of religious texts as a source. Though it wasn't entirely you, you have a common practice of using the Bible as a source which is fine, but too much and editors and readers will question the reliability and neutrality of the content associated with the source via WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. If you had added biblical verses as your primary source years ago, it would have been accepted as the norm. for sourcing biblical related topics and content. However, over the years, editors have been implementing their own personal research through this style of sourcing, which has caused so many disputes and blocks to the point where the Wikipedia community had to update the policies and guidelines in more detail. Im not trying to discourage you from editing, I'm trying to keep you from doing something that could get you into trouble. Here is policy dealing with Islamic related articles: WP:MOSISLAM and a nutshell dealing with religious sourcing overall: WP:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources. (This message has or will be sent to another editor also.) Happy editing and Cheers! — 04:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, User:JudeccaXIII. I'm having a little trouble following you here. I've looked back over the edit history, and I don't think I've added any new information to Abimelech (Judges) that is sourced to the Bible. In one instance, I did add a single footnote to a sentence which was otherwise unsourced showing which biblical passage the sentence was paraphrasing. I'm not sure why you're bringing up WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Could you show me a diff or two where my editing on Abimelech has raised concerns about verifiability, original research, or neutral point of view? I feel like I must be missing some essential detail in this conversation. Is it possible that I'm being confused with another editor? I'd like to avoid making edits that seem inappropriate, but it would help if you could be more specific about which edits where a problem. Thanks for your concerns. Alephb (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw this edit: [6] in the articles history. You've done nothing wrong really, but I still sent this message because you use the Bible as a source in some of the articles you edit. Your's not the only one who has received this message, but I just want you to know for future reference. But here's the real culprit: [7] just in case your wondering. I recommend start using academic sources via Google Books instead of religious text. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. So the issue is moving biblical references in the text into footnotes. I wasn't aware that that was any different than having them right in the text -- it was strictly a visual thing, trying to unclutter the sentences. But if you'd like me to not move them, I can deal with that. Is the idea that the position in footnotes somehow gives the biblical text more implicit authority than a citation in parentheses would? As for Google Books, I already use it quite a bit to add references to articles, and I think I'm aware of when primary religious sources are and aren't appropriate. I try to use the Bible only when the section calls for a paraphrase of what's in a narrative or section. In the future, if you come across any specific edits I make that you think inappropriately lean on primary sources, don't hesitate to let me know. Alephb (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, you've done nothing really wrong. I just want you to know for future reference to avoid the excessive use of biblical verses as a source. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

All right. And on those occasions when I do refer to a biblical source, do you have any preference as to whether I put that reference in parantheses or in footnotes? Alephb (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would look really hard to find an academic source that mentions the content you're looking for since academic sources will reference the Bible. But if you do come to an obstacle where you can't find an academic source to support lets say a "biblical narrative". Sourcing the content with the Bible will be the appropriate thing to do. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. There's enough stuff out there in Google Books and JSTOR that probably just about anything will show up there. Alephb (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This [8] was very well said. Wikipedia at it´s finest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For patiently helping out new editors. —PaleoNeonate – 04:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Is there something I'm supposed to do with the barnstar? Am I supposed to put it somewhere? Do I just let it get archived? I'm new to this whole phenomenon. Alephb (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some people create a user subpage which they link from their user page (sometimes via a tab) and copy them there, others copy them to a section of their user page (I do this, some also prefer to hat/collapse that section); others just leave them on their talk page and/or archives. It's not impossible that talk page blankers just delete/undo them, but it's really up to you. —PaleoNeonate – 07:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering how the Judaizer research is going. Any progress? Any questions I can help you with? Judaizers (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? Alephb (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The dispute on The Exodus has gone to dispute resolution, and we would welcome your comments there. WP:DRN#The Exodus discussion. Tatelyle (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to sign that one: [9]. Keep fighting the good fight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's embarassing. Any idea how that one happened? I seem to have gotten the timestamp on it, but not my username. Alephb (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It happens (for example), if you write more than 4 tildes, like this: 07:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Alephb (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job creating Pseudo-Orpheus, I would have never been able to do what you just did. Keep it up! JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Alephb (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wondering if you're interested in creating the article Pseudo-Orpheus. The reason I'm asking you because I used to have a "To create" list on my user page, but I've decided to not create any more articles until I improve the ones I already created. I also think you have far better talent than me when it comes to creating articles. Plus you understand how to source with Google Books and have a good understanding on Biblical topics. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm flattered. I'd be happy to. If it wouldn't be stepping on your toes, is there any chance I could get my hands on a copy of that list. If you don't mind, I just might write more than one article. I often think of creating an article, and then wonder if the topic is significant enough to cover. A pre-made list by another editor would confirm to me that I'm not just working with things an extreme biblical hobbyist would find interesting. If there's any articles on your list you'd rather not have me take a crack at, I'd be happy to hold off on those. (I'm not promising I'd make a bunch, I'm just thinking out loud here.) Alephb (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Lucky for you, the list was still in my user page history. It wasn't a long list either:

• Acts of Pusai
• History of Karka
• Martyrdom of Simeon
• Pseudo-Orpheus
• The Martyrdom of Pionius the Presbyter and his Companions

They're all ancient texts, most of them revolve around Syriac Christianity — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Alephb (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Alephb I'v nominated articles History of Mar Qardagh and The Chronicle of Arbela for speedy deletion. I'm also considering two more articles. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I see. Is this a genuine self-deletion attempt or a more of a cry for help? Alephb (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion really, I'v been focusing on the larger articles I created. It's not like your required to create these articles so don't feel pressured or obligated. Simply my desire to expand your list. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Good to hear there's no deadline on them. If you delete them, I'm assuming it would still be open to remake them at some point if someone comes along feeling motivated to do so? Right now I've (just barely) started work on Pusai, where I immediately ran into the problem of everything being spelled umpteen different ways: Pusai, Pusay, Pusayk, Martyrdom of Pusai, Martyrdom of Mar Pusai, Martyrdom of Pusai-Qar-something, Acts of Pusai, Passions of Pusay, etc., etc., etc. I never looked much at Syriac Christianity, so it's been an interesting thing to look over. Alephb (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can recreate a deleted article, especially if they were speedy deleted by the author. I had a few articles last year deleted because they're not worth my time. I'm glad you found a new interest in Christianity. There is a inactive Wikiproject solely for Syriac Christianity. For the titles, I recommend just finding the WP:COMMONNAME and create redirect pages for the other alternative titles to the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that should work. When it comes to names, my first problem was just making sure all those different titles were references to the same work. I wound up working it out by looking at what pages of Bedjan's compiliation Acts of Martys and Saints the various titles lead to. Now that I'm sure that the "Acts of Pusai" and the "Martyrdom of Pusai" are the same thing, the rest should just be a matter of running searches till I've got a decent amount of material.

My Aramaic is really, really rusty so maybe I'll track down a copy of AMS and try to brush up a bit. I'll just use English sources for Pusai, though, so I don't get myself turned around. Alephb (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Abigail (Bible). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I´m watching the Exodus discussion(s), and I saw you mention List of minor biblical figures. In case you haven´t come across it, there´s also List of names for the biblical nameless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hehe yes I've seen it before. But thanks for bringing it up in case I didn't. I love the list articles around here. Alephb (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes! List of fictional angels, List of fictional demons, List of deities in fiction, List of planet killers, etc. I was toying with the idea of creating List of fictional pornography, but settled for [10]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you won't find that in Encyclopaedia Britannica! Alephb (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That's the second time.[11] I'm out for a walk but will do something about a proper warning later. See their similar edit elsewhere. The source as I recall discounts this claim. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't aware of any backstory, but this [12] is not promising. Alephb (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy that. Alephb (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please help the good people at The Bible and violence improve that article. It´s got to be easier than Exodus, right..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow! I can't believe that conversation is still going on. I was involved in that conversation way, way back near when it started in May, if I've got my details straight, and later removed it from my watchlist when it seemed like it was getting too unproductive. I'm a little busy this week, but I might be able to squeeze in some time and see if I have anything to contribute (and try to get up to speed on what sounds like an enormous conversation!). Alephb (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, please do! It was unproductive enough I left for two months out of concern it was my fault. But nothing at all happened the entire time I was gone. No one did anything to improve the article. I am willing to do almost anything anyone else says--so long as we can all just agree to do something! I asked two specific questions--if you could look and think and get back to it when you have time or an idea it would be great. You know I think you're brilliant--I have said it enough! Please come help!Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Over the past few years, I've been trying, with mixed success, to spend less time disagreeing with people on the internet. I try to reserve that for the unpleasant but necessary task of working to counter-act the influence of the worst kinds of editors on Wikipedia. Neither you nor your debating partner over at Bible and Violence strike me as those kinds of editors. Instead, it looks to me like you are both bright, well-meaning people with a persistent disagreement about how, in general, a complex article should be written. And I really don't have a strong opinion, for the most part, on what an article like "Bible and Violence" should look like.

To be perfectly blunt, I think Jytdog will outlast you here. You seem to be devoting all of your Wikipedia time -- and a large amount of effort -- to this one thing. And I worry that it might give you a skewed image of what Wikipedia is. It's not usually like this. I probably make a few hundred edits for each edit that someone reverts, because I bounce all over the place and try to avoid too many argument (though goodness knows I've gotten myself into some). On the other hand, my impression is that Jytdog is spending a fairly small amount of time on the article, and yet has the upper hand. At some point, I think you'll probably give up on this article, but I hope you don't give up on Wikipedia. Goodness knows we need more motivated, thoughtful people around here.

You are mostly here for one reason -- to clean up this article and maybe on other on basically the same topic. I can't imagine how frustrating that must be. I'm not saying it's wrong to be highly focused on one thing, but I just personally couldn't keep on being a contributor to Wikipedia very long if I worked that way. I'll watch the article, at least for a while, but I feel very reluctant to try to make significant changes to it.

Lately, I've been largely working on Wikisource's translation of the Bible, an interesting project here: [13]. It has had its dust-ups in the past, but is a very collaborative place right now, and for the time being I think I'll keep working there, because I think I can get a lot done there without too much controversy. At least for now. Alephb (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, bloody amazing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to "do" Book of Deuteronomy? Numbers gave me a headache. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

We even have the WP:WikiBible —PaleoNeonate – 20:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I tell you what, Gråbergs. It's my first week in my first office job, and my brain is tired, so no promises, but I think I can probably crank out Deuteronomy and then some Saturday if nobody has done it by then. I do like it, and I do think it's interesting, but after a day of learning municipal zoning codes, I think I'll watch some mindless television and turn my brain off for a bit. Alephb (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Life tends to get in the way of WP, it´s a good thing. If you have any good ideas for sourcing/improving "my" wall of OR/SYNTH, don´t hesitate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as a wall of PLOT. But I'm sure I could find reliable sources that back up anything you write on the wall. Alephb (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I neglected to put this page on my watchlist and entirely missed this entire discussion until today. You're right--I think--in everything you have said here--except about me giving up!  :-) Jytdog certainly does have the upper hand! And he should. He's been here longer, done more, has more experience--and apparently has most of us a little intimidated--I don't say that as a condemnation of him--just as a statement of what the reality is. I know I never got into an edit war with him--I would argue on the talk page--but if he reverted something, I figured he knew what he was doing--even if I didn't! My only real complaint is that he rarely explains. He just rips your heart out and trashes it! But I have survived that before--anyone who writes does--and I won't give up easily. You and Graebergs have both encouraged me to expand my repertoire here, and I know you're right! I may do that when this article is completed. This will probably be my approach here--one project at a time. It's generally how I work. It may continue to get me in trouble here.  :-)

I actually came here to ask you to read the section of theological responses and edit it if you would. If real life isn't still interfering. I promise I won't argue--well--I might ask for an explanation--especially if changes involve "happy" to "glad"... but otherwise I won't argue! It needs shortening I think--but I can't quite see how or where. Blind spot. So--HELP!!  :-) Thank you--for everything. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If any of you are interested , I got an idea for another article:Humour in the Bible. I was reading the bit about pharaoh and the midwives, and I "heard" them talking: "-Seriously, he bought that!? -Shebrew, we used his prejudice against him!" If you haven´t read Biblical errata, please do. I really want a "Wicked Bible"! And a James Tissot painting of Rebecca and her camels riding on camels... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that anyone would call on me here, I think I'll stick with pouring what Wiki-time I set aside into the translation project for now, and will leave The Bible and Violence in the hands of the editors who are currently working away on it. It seems like you folks are collectively making progress. Alephb (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I am sad you won't be with us to finish this up, but I accept--without prejudice. I hope we run into each other again some time. You've been great. We are making lots of progress, it is looking remarkably good--like a real encyclopedia entry! I actually think we are close to completing it. I am mostly working on finding references for Graeberg's stuff right now. Then we should be pretty much done! Awesome huh?

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Your idea sounds awe inspiring! I love it! Hey--since Aleph has turned me down, would you be willing to go over the theology section? I went over all your stuff--though you rarely make any mistakes--and I am still working on references, though I have to break for this week--but maybe you could help me out??? Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 I shall read through it and give you my ignorant impressions. I find that ignorance, correctly used, can be surprisingly useful on WP. See you at the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You make me smile. Thank you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit sad to see you go and hope that you'll be back. On the other hand, I'm sure that you have other great projects. Farewell, —PaleoNeonate – 06:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ditto the above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. It's not trouble at Wikipedia/Wikisource that have made me take a break, but various things out in the non-Wiki world that are needing my time. It's been a good last few months here. It's just that left to my own devices, I can easily use an enormous amount of Wiki time to procrastinate. I fully expect to get back to Wiki stuff, possibly on a more strictly scheduled but definitely regular basis, once I've gotten some things in order with regard to some newly arisen job and family responsibilities, and one or two personal projects. But I'm still convinced that Wikipedia is the neatest encyclopedia project out there, and a worthwhile use of (reasonable amounts of) time. Alephb (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

PS. User:PaleoNeonate , Jenhawk777 [[]]I intend to still be responsive to things posted on my talk page -- I've got email alerts set up, but I probably will be doing little to nothing out in the regular pages for at least a week and probably less than a month. I put "indefinite" up there because I'm not sure exactly how long everything will take. Basically, it boils down to three aging grandparents who need some assistance, a recent new job, and a move to a new location starting this weekend. I'm reworking my regular routines, and once I have a good feel for how much free time I have, my intention is to allocate some fixed amount to the Wiki-world, possibly less than the amount of time I've been putting in lately at Wikisource. Thanks for the kind words. Alephb (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I perfectly understand real life interfering--and contrary to how it feels at times--reality does have to take precedence. I feel sometimes like I should join Wiki-anonymous or something--Hello, my name is Jenny and I am a Wiki-holic... We need to start a program. But look at you --already free, being the good grandson and all of that--you can be my sponsor.  :-) I wish you the best--and I wish your grandparents well--and if you don't object, I will say a prayer for peace and comfort and strength for them--but then they have you so that may be moot. We will miss you while you're gone and look forward to your timely return. Good luck with everything. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No objection here. I appreciate it. Alephb (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I know you have other things on your plate right now--hope you are doing okay with all of that--and being bugged by all the nonsense on Wiki isn't at the top of your list, but I still thought you might be interested in knowing about this. You tried to be encouraging and deal in good faith, and I value that. I wasn't the only person who had these issues. That actually makes me feel a little bit better about Wikipedia overall. It may take a bit but they do get around to weeding out some of this. That's a good thing to know. We made a lot of progress on the Bible article--once there was no more obstruction--and I moved on and did a second article. How about that? I am cooking now! Hope all is well with you and that your family is good, your job is good, and the holidays won't be too stressful. Happy Holidays! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jytdog_Ban_breaking/request_of_Enforcement_and_further_actions Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Jenhawk777! I'm glad you feel a sense of closure for the one article and I'm glad you've considered sticking around. As for the link, that's all a bit outside my usual area of experience and I'll let the parties involved hash it out themselves. I wish nothing but the best to both you and your "obstructor" over at the article. May you both have a long and prosperous and productive Wiki-career. It's been a good couple of weeks for my family -- this weekend was mostly taken up with tearing out carpet and putting in new laminate flooring at my parents' house with a younger brother of mine. I've moved two different pianos this week for two different sets of people. Over the next week I'll be juggling a variety of things with the need to finally start unpacking all the various boxes that my things are in. The good news is that moving twice in a fairly short time period has helped me to get rid of a lot of useless junk I don't really need. The backlog of things to do out in non-Wiki world is still substantial, but moving toward getting under control. I look forward to returning as soon as I can responsibly do so.

Without commenting on any specific case, I'll say that overall the Wiki way of handling conflict is incredibly inefficient but generally, in the very long run, produces good decisions. This is an excellent environment for practicing patience and dispute resolution skills. Just out of curiosity, what's your other article? And since you've been friendly enough to inquire about my own life, how is yours going? Alephb (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not participating in it either--just letting them hash it out themselves as you say. I started watching his talk page when we were communicating just before you left and haven't turned it off. I get a notification when sections of his talk-page are archived. This is the fourth one of these noticeboard announcements so far--that I've seen--but this one was worth remarking on since this guy was really mad! No one else has called for banning! Kind of extreme!

What I have taken away from this is that he is regularly involved in one controversy after another, but that it is his manner and not that he is necessarily in the wrong. My bottom line remains what it was--to listen and learn and try to see past that high-handedness to what the actual issue is. He may not explain--but if I can't figure it out I don't deserve to be here--what he says may even be wrong--(he was wrong about the definition of theology)--but he certainly knows Wiki-style and he was right that my writing wasn't fitting it. After that big hassle with him over what theology is and isn't, I ended up moving almost everything I wrote into the theology section after all! I could eventually see he was just right in a roundabout way. It is fair to say his style of not-communicating is contentious--it seems to constantly gets him into conflicts with others--but I remain of the opinion that he is a good editor, and he understands Wiki. So. I learned from all of it. I just thought this one was really vehement!

I feel like I haven't been on Wiki long enough to know whether they are efficient at handling conflict--letting people attempt to be grown-ups and work it out themselves is very probably the best approach there is--but I can certainly see how it could all work out in the long run. My dispute resolution skills are reasonable but my patience is often thin--maybe even a little see-through... :-) But I am beginning to find my footing here, so it will be harder to ruffle my feathers after this I think. So that's a big plus for me! And for everyone who has to talk to me!

I am so glad to hear things are well with your family! A younger brother--you have more than one? God bless your mother! I have spent most of my life moving so I know exactly what you mean about it helping get rid of unnecessary junk too, but every now and then, after dumping truckloads, there will be one item I wish I had kept. If I had a way to identify it ahead of time I would fix that! But I am related to two people who have trouble ever throwing anything away so I have found myself all the way to the other end--haven't used it in a week?--out it goes!  :-) My family is well. Do you celebrate the holidays? We go for it big time here so there will be tons of food and company and I will be exhausted but happy.

This is my other article-- [14][Christianity in civilization] --it was apparently just as contentious a couple years ago and we missed it! :-) I added about a dozen of the little sub-sections I guess, and so far no one has reverted any of it though someone did come along and check my references. It's quiet there now--so perhaps it will be quiet at the Bible article soon. I should probably expand my area of interest but this is what my degrees are in and it's really all I know! Maybe Wiki doesn't like specialists but that's what I am. I'll survive or I won't--but in the meantime--it has overall been an amazing experience. Thank you for how you have helped. I hope you and yours have a wonderful holiday season.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've got five younger brothers, and three younger sisters. Your style of dealing with junk sounds like my mother's. If she had her way, she and my father might be living in a studio apartment, cooking everything on a single hot plate, transferring the food to a single shared plate, and then eating cross-legged on the floor so she doesn't have to deal with having a table around. I exaggerate, a little, but it is true that when they moved to their current home she was excited by how small the new kitchen was. In a family of eleven, someone with her talent for reducing junk is a must. I've mostly inherited her tendencies -- when I talk about how much useless junk I have, I'm mostly talking about books I'll never read again, clothing I won't wear, a bread-pan I never use to cook in: little things. I have a lot less junk than most people but a lot more than I'd like to have. All the actual moving took under ten hours this time: one trip with a cargo van, two trips with my car. Now I just have to get all my stuff out the contractor bags I haphazardly stuffed it all in and find everything.

We tend to have fairly modest holidays: the massive family gathers (we've got several generations of large families on both sides -- one annual reunion draws from a pool of well over 100 descendants of my great-grandfather by his two wives (he was a widower, not a bigamist)), eats food, sits around talking all day, and attends the various religious services depending on the holiday (for the religious members and the others who tag along), and so on. The holidays aren't fancy affairs, but they're the highlight of the year. Now that the oldest six are all out of the house and living away from our home town, the holidays are an important time for us to see some of the siblings who don't get together too often.

Wikipedia likes specialists. Wikipedia just tends to be skeptical of people who specialize in one thing, arrived recently, and repeatedly get into arguments on multiple. If your other articles tend to go smoothly, you should be fine. I myself specialize: upward of 90% of my edits are to pages involving the Hebrew Bible, and I've never been sanctioned in any way, despite spending more time than I'd like in the various dispute-resolution places. My goal (though I'm sure I don't always succeed) is to treat more experienced editors as my superiors and less experienced editors as my equal, and to pick my battles. It seems to have worked, so far. Alephb (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay--this really made me smile. :-) Your mom sounds amazing. I think I would really like her. Actually, your whole family sounds amazing! I grew up isolated from any extended family since my parents were unable to get along with anyone else including each other. I don't say that with bitterness--anymore--but with humor now. I have learned it is possible to learn more from difficulties than ease I think--though not necessary to create it in order to do that! As a result, I have worked extremely hard on learning negotiation skills--I hope to someday employ them properly on Wikipedia!  :-) Actually, you-know-who has shown back up on the Bible article and it's pretty bad. I think I responded well--we'll see how long I can keep it up! I will keep you and your family in mind, doing things for one another, gathering together, and think of how much patience and skill that must require and I will try to do good too. :-)

I don't see yet how Wikipedia demonstrates skepticism of those who repeatedly get into disagreements since my "obstructor" certainly qualifies as doing exactly that, and when I tried to turn to them for help they denied me. I need more experience spread out over places where this kind of thing doesn't happen. Oh wait! You said that!  :-) I have answered him but I am also taking your advice and moving on and doing more. I will try to pick something obscure like Graebergs says.  :-)

I will try to pick my battles but I feel like I have spent way too much time being required to defend myself not just my statements. I do have to be careful not to attack in return. My instinct and my past mean I have to fight my tendency to fight back. Say a prayer for me! :-) I am not sure I will be capable of measuring up to your standard where this one person is concerned. I will try. You're a tough act to follow you know? I'm sure it's all your amazing mother's fault--she went and passed that amazing-ness on didn't she? I am trying to be good.  :-)

I will think of you and your amazing family at the holidays and be with you there in spirit hoping you all have a wonderful time filled with all the love and true joy of being connected by love. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. However, while I'd be happy to discuss almost anything Wikipedia-related with you, I don't think I'll be commenting any more on the conflict at The Bible and Violence because of how unproductive it's gotten. If you are determined to stick with working on that article, I'd recommend seeking a WP:RFC. If anything can break the stalemate, it would be something like that. Otherwise, I'll leave things to you, Graebergs, and Jytdog to hash out. Alephb (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh it's gotten much worse here in the last couple of days. The stalemate was broken for the last month--Jytdog left and so we worked--without conflict. Grabergs and I had made all kinds of progress to the point we felt removing the tags was appropriate, so she did, and she told me the next step was nominating a 'good article,' so I did, and Jytdog showed up like an angry god talking about how bad everything I had written was. I am being polite and cooperative in response--so far keeping my cool. He is so vehemently hateful of anything that is not negative enough about Christianity to suit him, it is sometimes difficult to separate the reasonable points from the vitriol. Someone else showed up and said 'Jytdog, why are you so angry' to him, but I doubt they will be back again after his response. I felt very discouraged last night and thought, I will just quit Wikipedia, being bullied is just awful, but I had a good night's sleep, I am feeling a little stronger today, I tried to make the changes I guessed were what he objected to, and I put the material he had removed back in the article. If he reverts it again, I will post an RFC. Of course, that will do no good if no third parties show up, which is what happened in the past when I requested third party comments, but I will go through the process as best I can--for awhile anyway. I don't know how much bullying I can take while everyone else looks the other way. We'll see.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Grabergs is a he. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I just read the new intro and it seems great, but I have some questions. I hope you won't mind my asking since I am still learning Wiki's style. I get completely what you said about Baker's. It makes perfect sense. It was a careless choice. I won't use it again. But I have specific questions here. One of the things Grabergs guessed that Jytdog didn't like was that I used two quotes to start two of the paragraphs and she said that wasn't the Wiki way, but here you have used a quote from one guy and discussed what Jytdog would say to me was theology and yet that's okay. Is there any way to explain it to me that I can understand the difference well enough to do what you did without doing what I did? Or does the difference really just come down to how much Jytdog clearly hates Christianity and Christians and especially me? Now he is talking about removing votes from the survey--can he do that? And yes, please, send me references for the definitions of herem and hamas that would be satisfactory.

Thank you for showing up and participating when I know it probably wasn't easy. I admire you for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Where have I used a quote and discussed what Jytdog would call theology? I'm at a little bit of a loss to understand what you're referring to here. If you're referring to the new intro to the "In the Hebrew Bible" section that you really like, then Jytdog wrote that, not me.

Where has Jytdog talked about removing votes from surveys? Could you find a diff or quote of him saying that and show me? I'm hoping you're misunderstanding him here; Jytdog can be prickly but I have my doubts about whether he would remove people's votes unless there was a good reason to. It would be very disappointing (and I think unlikely) for him to manipulate votes that way.

I think it's a bit much to accuse Jytdog of hating Christians. If you were to dig around a bit through the various "drama boards" and find, for example, that Jytdog only has confrontational run-ins with Christians, then you might be on to something. But I can guarantee you haven't done that, because that's not what you would have found.

If you just want bare dictionary references on hamas and herem, you can find that hamas refers to both violence and wrondoing on page 256 of David Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume III, Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. You can find herem defined as "excluded from profane use and devoted to Y[ahweh] for destruction" on page 319 of the same. Alephb (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, apparently you didn't!

Revision as of 23:18, 15 December 2017 it's not quite as bad as I first thought--he says removing dummy votes--but it's just my statements he wants removed. Is it okay for him to do that on an Rfc he didn't write?

I thought you wrote the new intro to the Hebrew Bible. That he wrote it makes the content make even less sense to me then. I am so far unable to see how it is different in concept from the quote from Siebert that I had originally. I am trying to figure it out. Any help would be appreciated. You explain things well.

We will have to respectfully disagree on that one. It isn't necessary for him to "only" have conflicts with Christians to prove his extreme personal feelings, it is only necessary that he react with vitriol when he does. Jytdog has many different confrontations, including warnings from the noticeboard on an average of once every six weeks or so. They all complain of the same behaviors generally. He has made several statements that seem "extreme" to me since I started on Wiki. I am not on a personal mission to take over Wikipedia for Christians. I can't help but be exasperated by such crazy accusations. I can't imagine where else that kind of thing springs from. I could be wrong of course, but that is the impression he has given me. Others are noticing his hostility. Someone asked him--up in talk before the Rfc--why are you so angry? That indeed is the question. If it isn't what it looks like--why is he so angry? Why is so much of it directed exclusively at me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked for that dictionary on googlebooks and it isn't there. Where else might I look for it? Should I buy a new dictionary. I started out using Strongs --which I own but it's old--and was told that is not considered good anymore. So I switched to online sources and was told Biblestudytools is suspect, so I erased them, but Baker's is Evangelical apparently and not good and I can't find this book on-line. I need a good dependable reusable source that everyone can accept. I can buy one. This one is 1996--is there a newer version? Are there any others you would recommend? Do you speak Hebrew? My Hebrew is terrible. I have a friend in Israel who makes fun of me all the time. At least you haven't actually fallen into fits of laughter yet. But what's a little ridicule among friends--right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me start with your first comment. I'll do dictionaries after.

I really don't know what the "rules" are about cleaning up RFC's. But I'm relieved to hear no one was trying to remove actual votes -- just very much non-standard comments formatted as votes. The way you had it, it looked like you were trying to vote three different ways, and it needed to be cleaned up one way or another.

I don't know about the Siebert quote. Did Jytdog say he objected to using Siebert?

Let me put this "hatred of Christians" bit another way. Jytdog has looked at a number of your edits and sees, if I understand him correctly, some kind of "hellish much" anti-Semitism. I don't buy it, because I would need to see some kind of actual evidence of anti-Semitism before I buy that kind of accusation. Are your edits motivated by anti-Semitism? Hell if I know. Perhaps you are sitting next to a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as I write this. But I object to such an accusation until he can come up with some kind of evidence.

You have looked at a number of Jytdog's edits and see, if I understand it correctly, "hatred of Christians." I don't buy it, because I would need to see some kind of actual evidence of Christian-hatred before I buy that kind of accusation. Are his edits motivated by hatred of Christians. Hell if I know. Perhaps he is torturing a consecrated eucharistic wafer and laughing about the death of Jesus as we speak. But I object to such an accusation until you can come up with some kind of evidence.

In general, it is very, very difficult to understand the motives of people we're talking to online. And, on top of that, it is a matter of Wikipedia policy that we're not to speculate about negative motives without evidence. You've certainly got evidence that he's been uncivil toward you, no doubt. If you have evidence that religious hatred is causing the incivility, then we'd have something to talk about. Alephb (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to dictionaries, probably the best-accepted one for Hebrew words is HALOT, the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. There's a little version of it called Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, that can be found for 15 bucks on Amazon, if you want to buy something. Unless you're planning to be a real Hebrew fanatic, that should probably meet all your dictionary needs when it comes to just simple definitions.

My own personal favorite, the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew would cost over a week of my wages. It is also available for free in PDF form on Library Genesis, but as I am not an expert in copyright law, I wouldn't venture to say whether it would be legal for you to download in whatever country you live in. My understanding is that no human being has ever been legally punished for downloading a PDF in the United States, but I'm not a lawyer and can't tell you what to do there.

If you're just looking for Wikipedia editing help with definition, I'd do something like type in "herem warfare" on Google Books. You'll get all sorts of good book references, not to dictionaries but, even better, to scholars discussing the term at length. Unfortunately, the existence of Hamas in the Gaza Strip will really interfere with a search like "hamas violence," but for almost all Hebrew terms Google Books will likely have everything you need, even if not in dictionaries.Alephb (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right and it isn't all Christians he hates--it's just me. This started at Christianity and violence then moved here. I attempted to get some help from admin at one point and his response was completely about me being a Christian and wanting to push my point of view.

I realize it is hard to discern the motives of people right next to us and especially difficult in a purely print medium, but there have been a lot of comments in the last six months, and they have all been pretty hostile, and it has kind of accumulated for me. I will start keeping a record. God forbid that I should ever need it for anything.

When given a specific example--if my point of view shows up in my writing--like your example about Baker's, when have I ever argued about removing it? That was perfectly reasonable and helpful--and not hostile. Jytdog writes "this is bad, chock full of bad, it should be moved to Jesuspedia" and how can anyone defend that as helpful, in good faith or not evidencing bias? I just want to do the work. I want to do a good job. I don't have ulterior motives as Jytdog has accused me of having. I don't have an agenda--I am not trying to take over or influence anything. I am just trying to write a fair and reasonable article on the Bible.

Of course I did that research on Googlebooks. That's where I get almost all the references I got. Jytdog doesn't know but I did the referencing for what Grabergs wrote on four of the five books covered. I wrote and referenced another by myself. Can you tell which? If not, perhaps all my writing isn't completely chock full of badness. But he knows I wrote those first paragraphs on the categories of violence definitions. The fact it is getting different treatment indicates bias to me--perhaps it just indicates those sectiopns really are extraordinarily badly written. Idk. It's all very discouraging. My options seem to be that he hates Christians, he just hates me, or that I really am a bad writer. I think I'll sign off for awhile. I'm sorry you got sucked into this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

My options seem to be that he hates Christians, he just hates me, or that I really am a bad writer. Or you are the new kid in a very rough neighborhood, who jumped right in to one of the toughest ongoing conflicts the site has, and then decided to keep wrestling with one of Wikipedia's prickliest experienced editors over one article for six months, all the while wearing your beliefs about religion on your sleeve. And because Wikipedia is a site where no article is truly finished, any conflict has the potential to last until one person or the other backs down. Depending on your tactics, Wikipedia can be either completely conflict-free or nothing but one unenending conflict. A completely conflict-free strategy would be to edit a variety of articles and just move on from any article where you encounter resistance. A completely conflict-filled strategy would be to only edit the single article where you've found resistance, and keep at it forever. We all have to choose how much online arguing is worth it for us. It's sort of baked into the nature of Wikipedia that final resolutions to problems rarely appear. In the long run, happy Wikipedia editors are the ones who either have a very high tolerance for conflict, or else have a strong ability to move on when an article gets too unproductive.

I hope things get better for you.Alephb (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I've moved on twice now. The first time it seemed like he followed me. The second time I just left. But it doesn't really solve anything doesn't it? Flight is always an option in any conflict and I agree sometimes it is the wisest one--but it isn't always the wise option. We have to reserve judgment on which approach is best because every circumstance is different. I am trying to both not fight and not run, but you may be right, that may be impossible because the dichotomy is inherent in the environment here. I take it you think no matter how he behaves this is basically my fault for not walking away, but apparently, since I have tried that, I can walk away but probably should also accept not coming back. My interest in the article itself would be done. Well so be it. Good bye Aleph. It's been nice knowing you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not that I'm thinking of it as a matter of fault. If he were coming to me for advice, I'd advise him the same way: that the conflict isn't worth it and he'd be best off moving on, especially given how emotionally heated this seems to be for him. It's just that he's not been coming to me for advice, so if it looks like I'm being hard on you it's just because you keep asking me for advice. Otherwise I'd just mind my own business here. I've been in a similar position to you before (not with the same people) -- spending months on a single argument on an article (or closely related group of articles), getting nowhere, and going in circles. I've done it more than once. It's extremely frustrating, and it's why I've changed my editing strategies. I probably edit about 100 articles for each one I encounter any serious resistance on. For that 1% of articles, I try to realistically assess my chances, and often just cut my losses. Even if I give in every single time I encounter resistance (which I don't quite do) that means I'm getting my way 99% of the time, because on 99% of pages there's just no one who wants to argue. Argumentative editors don't follow me around because I'm mostly not wiling to play the game with them, and there's always other people who are willing to give them the arguments they're looking for.

Of course, I have trouble living up to my own editing ideals, but I think it would be amazing if I could train myself not to argue at all. I could get enormous amounts of editing done with very little hassle, and leave all the arguing for people who like arguing.

To use a religious metaphor, I'd like to be like Isaac when he was digging his wells. He dug a well, some people came in and filled it in, reverting his changes. He moved on. He dug another well, and the bastards filled it in again. He moved on, and finally they left him alone and he got to dig a well and keep it dug. If Isaac had chosen to defend his wells, he wouldn't necessarily be doing anything wrong. It just might not be worth it when there's so many spots out there where people would leave him alone to dig another well. And in the long run, I don't worry that the argumentative editors will "get away with it" if I don't stand up to them. There are always other argumentative editors they will eventually lock horns with.

Wikipedia needs many different personality types. Your personality type is one of those it needs more of. You're civil, you're willing to learn, and very willing to work with others. So while I'll admit that I would be relieved to see you give up on that individual article you're having trouble on, I think there's definitely a place for you at Wikipedia if you want it. And if you don't, I'd be disappointed to see you go, but that would be understandable too. Wikipedia's a rough neighborhood. Not everyone wants to hang out here. Alephb (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

My advice to her would be is that Wikipedia is heavily biased for mainstream scholarship. So, if she wants to win a debate, she has to do that by citing mainstream scholarly works. She is entitled to be evangelical, but for Wikipedia being evangelical is just a subjective religious belief among many other subjective beliefs. Wikipedia is written by editors having various religions and by editors having no religion, so they need to agree upon which are the best scholarly WP:SOURCES using objective criteria for identifying those. Wikipedia is biased for the universities, see WP:ABIAS. It isn't biased for or against Christianity. So Wikipedia finds WP:SOAPboxing for Christianity and soapboxing against Christianity to be equally infantile. Wikipedia does not care about the subjective beliefs of its editors, all it cares is about objective facts. I know this sounds to some like old-fashioned epistemology, yet it is a basic aspect of our work. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And that is good advice. So, for example, me and Jenhawk777 discussed the use of Baker's Evangelical Dictionary, which she agreed would probably not be a great choice as a main source for defining the Hebrew Bible's terms about violence. If Jenhawk's choices of sources had been more in line with Wikipedia's usual preferences from the start, perhaps the discussion at The Bible and Violence would have gone smoother. On the other hand, I think that particular article's level of discussion has gone downhill to the point where any newcomer would probably be better of gaining experience in less heated and more collaborative conditions, like on less controversial articles where there's less chance of things going sideways.

I tell you what, Jenhawk777. If you do stay around, and if you're willing to give it a shot, I'd love to collaborate with you on writing some articles that don't exist yet. I'm thinking about doing an article called The Martyrdom of Pionius the Presbyter and his Companions, one called History of Mar Qardagh, and finally The Chronicle of Arbela. No pressure, of course, but you might enjoy getting some experience under your belt on less prominent articles. 01:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're serious, then yes, absolutely, I will take you up on that. I sincerely quit Wikipedia for a whole day! Then found this. I can't think of anything that could possibly be better than working with you off in some obscure little corner! I don't know anything about any of these topics and can hardly think of something more exciting than learning a bunch of new stuff while writing about it with you. I am ready to walk away from Bible and violence--except Graberg's asked me to do more references again and I said I would. Well, I can manage that without conflict I think if no one else knows it's me doing it. And who knows when he'll need that anyway? So yes and yes and yes! And thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thank you so much for the good advice. I agree with all you said. I really do recognize the value of good sources but have floundered about a couple of times trying to figure out what qualifies as 'mainstream scholarship' where studies of the Bible are concerned. The majority of Bible scholars are religious-- it gets really difficult--impossible at times--to exclude them--and therein lies the rub in this particular case. Alephb is going to help me get some better dictionaries and that will make a difference for part of it. And while I do absolutely agree Wikipedia doesn't care about the personal views of editors, there are some editors that do. I don't think I've done any soap-boxing, but I am still learning what neutral point of view means on Wiki. When I first got here I thought it meant presenting all points of view as they are presented in the sources. Boy did I take a bashing for that! But I am beginning to figure it out--I think--I hope. So thanx again for caring enough to comment. I appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious, Jenhawk. The Martyrdom of Pionius the Presbyter is no laughing matter. Alephb (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

OMG! Humor! How wonderful! :-) So how does one start a new article? In their own sandbox or on a draft page? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I usually start in my sandbox, I think. Or one can just start the article directly by clicking on the red links above and typing into the box that comes up. An article can even be started as a stub -- a tiny little thing, as small as a single sentence. But just make sure that sentence cites a source, because otherwise the new article quality control volunteers might delete the thing. Alephb (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of this dictionary? [[15]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's old -- published in 1906 -- but for a time it was the leader in its field. It's still relevant but outdated in places. This is a borderline source: as long as you're not using it for anything controversial, I would guess that usually people would let use of it stand. When using a source, I generally ask, Is this source at least as good as the average source used in this article? So in obscure articles that are sourced to 18th-century Bible dictionaries, using BDB instead is always a step up. And it's always a step up from Strong's. As far as scholars are concerned, BDB still exists, while Strong's never did. But because it's 111 years old, it would be tough to defend using it if anyone objected. There's also multiple free copies of it circulating online (and legally). See Brown-Driver-Briggs. Alephb (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please be patient as I am finding some of this difficult. I thought Strong's was supposed to be a great source! On Amazon, Strong's is rated 4 1/2 stars while Cline's only gets 3 1/2. What's up with that? I want to buy something I can have on hand and since it will have to last a little while anyway, I want to buy the newest best one, but I am having trouble deciding what that is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I should have said thank you for being so patient because of course you are being patient and very helpful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason that Strong's is popular is that it is very convenient for non-Hebrew-speakers to use. Instead of having to learn the alphabet, there's those handy Strong's numbers. It also helps the readers of the KJV find out which Hebrew word corresponds to which English word. Those are two wonderful features, attached to a very mediocre dictionary. To use BDB or most other Hebrew dictionaries, you wouldn't necessarily have to learn Hebrew, but you would need to at least memorize the alphabet to get much use out of them. So probably Strong's gets those 4.5 stars because Strong is really good at giving people who don't understand Hebrew the feeling that they can easily see through the English into the Hebrew. And to some extent it works, but not reliably. There's a whole bunch of problems with Strong's, that I'd be happy to talk about if you want to hear them.

The big three dictionaries (if you're looking for something in English) are BDB, HALOT, and DCH. HALOT is probably a bit more well regarded than DCH. My preference for DCH is kind of a personal thing. BDB is old, but very, very good. HALOT is new, and similar to BDB in approach. DCH is also new. If you want HALOT or DCH, it's going to be a lot of money. The Concise HALOT, which can be found for as little as $15, has all the same definitions, basically, but cuts down on a lot of the extra information that true Hebrew nerds want. If you're not looking to spend an enormous amount of money, but you want something at the very top of up-to-dateness and reliability, I think CHALOT is the clear winner.

There's also a weird thing about biblical Hebrew dictionaries. Most of the biblical Hebrew that has survived to the present is just the Bible itself. The Bible is something like 80% of the pre-Mishnaic Hebrew that has survived to the present. So for rare words, there's an enormous amount of guesswork, and sometimes the dictionaries just have to guess. It's not at all a situation like Greek, where the New Testament is just a drop in a bucket of the ancient Greek texts we have to work with, and so a word that only appears once in the New Testament will usually be found in other contexts that give it clarity. A word that just appears once in the Hebrew Bible will usually be understood only through educated guesswork.

Do you have access to any databases of scholarly journals? (I mean, in one sense, everyone does, because everything is on Sci-Hub, but Sci-Hub use may or may not be legal depending on what country you're in, and it's use has never been punished in the US as far as I know, but I'm not in a position to give legal advice.) A lot of times, if you're looking for a Hebrew word, you'll have better luck with journal articles than a dictionary, if you have access to a university library. Alephb (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Som vi säger i Sverige.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And a merry whatever those strange words mean to you, too! Alephb (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Strange words..? That´s it, I´m reporting you to ANI for ethnical insensitivity! I shall demand a block for at least 24 nanoseconds!!! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And I'll be reporting you for wishing me a happy religious holiday without checking whether I celebrate it! At this point I'd like to work in a joke about Ikea, but it's too early in the morning and I have to hurry off to work. Alephb (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm reporting both of you for excessive reporting. Wait--that's not a thing is it? Merry Christmas to both of you. You make things better wherever you are, and I can hardly think of a better compliment.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Alephb, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you, Judecca. And a happy season to you too! Alephb (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind going and taking a look and seeing if you think it's okay to submit? [[16]] I am looking forward to being done with this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

For reasons explained above, I'm going to recuse myself from any further involvement with The Bible and Violence. If you ever have any questions or comments about anything unrelated to this particular page, I would be happy to help however I can. Alephb (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Neonate.Alephb (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you still willing to give me some dictionary references I can use? I don't have a new dictionary yet and have asked Jytdog how to access HALOT online but have not yet been answered. I need some references I can use for herem and hamas and for these: ṣamat, shamad, nakah, aqar, qatsah, shabat, and kalah which can all be in a group for all I care! I have tried hard to exclude (from the paragraphs on the Rfc) all references that could be considered "evangelical"--I think--I hope.

I also asked him to be specific and tell me which references--outside of the dictionaries--does he think or know are "evengelical" but I have also gotten no answer to that yet--so I am guessing --again--which turned out badly last time and now I am doing it again... I am eliminating anything published by Bakers, that seems safe, trying to cut out Eerdman's as much as possible, and have moved on to John Knox, Westminster Press and any others I recognize as Christian at all--without really knowing if they are evangelical or not! I am finding that on some points that leaves me with no reference at all!

A lot of the information in this article is common as dirt and it's everywhere and--no problem--I can find Jewish or secular writers, but some of it is not so popular to study and write about, and trying to exclude all Christian writers is just impossible. Excluding all Christian writers as "evangelical" produces a partial and slightly skewed view. So that doesn't work. Therefore, I will probably be unable to eliminate them all since they are the primary group writing on the Bible, which also means I may inadvertently (or unavoidably) include an evangelical--since I really have no clue whether any of these people or publishing houses are actually evangelical or not. Bakers was nice enough to include it in their name--but most don't. Anyway--so much for my whining, bitching and moaning.  :-) Poor me! Woe is me! Now that that's done... Dictionaries!! I am in desperate need of dictionary references! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

But you don't want me to hand you page numbers to the DCH? I'm not sure what it is you're asking me to do. As far as I know, there's no WP:RELIABLE Hebrew dictionary, per se, online. If you're looking for sites legal to use in the United States, I don't think HALOT is out there. The closest thing to HALOT would be BDB. Would non-dictionary sources that discuss these words work? And do you have access to a university database of journal articles? If you do, I could give you journal article names probably for most of the entries. At least in terms of Hebrew words, most of the actual scholarship goes on in journal articles and books, and then the dictionary just sort of summarizes that work. DCH has all sorts of references to journal articles. Alephb (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well, uhmmm, yes, I did want you to just hand me the reference info--but I think I'm going to buy that concise Halot--but I am not a Hebrew scholar--will I be able to use it anyway? I have article/book references I think, but if you have more--send them on--I will check out everything you send. There is a slightly revised version of these paragraphs in my sandbox now--sans dictionary references. I will ask you to check it out before laying it at the feet of the almighty dog.Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I can get those references. They'll be to DCH, though. Is that okay with you? Alephb (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be perfect! And happy totally secular non-enfranchised unbiased non-ethnic holiday of whatever kind which you personally and freely choose to celebrate or not to whatever degree you choose according to your own completely private and personal inclination. Or Merry Christmas and Happy New Year as the case may be. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, don't spend a lot of time on it--I know you have family activities and all--but when you get a few minutes, if you would give what's in my sandbox the once over, I am hopeful that with those valid dictionary citations this will pass and I can be done with this article and move on. If it needs to be after the holidays, that's cool. I understand and will still be grateful.  :-) Tell everyone hi for me! I wish I could meet them all--I know I would love them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And happy whatever it is to you as well! I had thought you didn't want DCH, but if you'll take it I can hunt them down. I'm away from my personal library for the Christmas holiday, but I can get the references for you once I'm back home, probably Tuesday. Alephb (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No no I am perfectly happy with DCH--if I sounded less so it was probably because I was talking about what I needed to buy that was the most up to date that I can get--because it will have to last awhile! You know really, if you need to wait till January that's perfectly understandable. Nothing's on fire right now! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is just my opinion, but I don't think you'll have to worry too much about HALOT/CHALOT becoming obsoleted. In Hebrew lexicography, the pace is slow. Modern Hebrew lexicography really gets rolling with Gesenius, 1834. Gesenius remains the big one until he is supplanted by the revised and updated Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, 1906. BDB is knocked out of its leading position by HALOT, which comes along around 2002. So, to simplify, there's one big lexicon in the 19th century, one big one in the 20th, one big one so far in the 21st. Some parts of biblical studies can see major movement in a couple decades. Not so in Hebrew lexicography. There's just almost no new evidence coming to light. There are Ugaritic in the 30's, the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 40's and 50's, and . . . not a whole heck of a lot since.

As far as new developments are concerned, we've had like 800 pages of classical Hebrew available for the last maybe 1800 years of Jewish history. In the 40's and 50's, another 200 pages or so get found. Since then, maybe a handful of pages. So HALOT rests on a modern scholarly tradition of 170 years of reading the same 1000 pages over and over, scrutinizing every usage of each of the 8500-ish vocabulary terms found in those pages, trying to figure out what each word might mean. Barring some really unexpected source of more biblical Hebrew, the words that are going to be deciphered have all been deciphered, and the words that remain uncertain will remain uncertain. There just isn't room for anything major to change justify HALOT being considered obsolete any time soon. Alephb (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay then--Halot it is. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

All righty, User:Jenhawk777. Here's the words, followed by the glosses DCH gives for them.

ḥerem is "devoted object, that which is banned, i.e. excluded from profane use and devoted to Y[ahweh] for destruction . . . or religious use . . . ban, devotion to destruction" (David J.A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume III, p. 319).

ḥamas is "violence, wrong" (Volume III, p. 256).

ṣamat is "put an end to, exterminate . . . annihilate" (p. 133, Volume VII).

shamad is "[p. 431] "destroy . . . [p. 432] destroy, exterminate . . . inf[initive] abs[olute] as noun, destruction" (Volume VIII, p. 431-432).

nakah is "[p. 684] strike . . . strike, beat, beat down, [in one sense] as act of violence, [in another] in punishment, chastisement . . . [p. 685] to strike fatally, kill, in manslaughter, murder, assassination . . . as vengeance, retaliation, punishment . . . in warfare, conquest . . . combat . . . attack, defeat, rout, destroy, subdue . . ." (Volume V, p. 684-5).

ʕaqar is to pluck up, often in the violent sense. But I cannot seem to find this volume of my DCH for some reason. Sorry.

qatsah is "to cut off, in a destructive sense" (Volume VII, p. 179).

shabat with zeker can refer to one's "memory" being "blotted out" (p. 255), or in another idiom to "be blotted out . . . from . . . [the] earth" (p. 255). Another sense, "be exterminated, be destroyed, perish" (Volume VIII, p. 255).

kalah in Qal can mean "be complete, be finished, be destroyed, be consumed, be weak, be dim . . . be determined, desire, disappear, perish" (p. 416). In Piel, "complete, finish, end, use up, exhaust, destroy, exterminate" (p. 416).

kalah as a noun means "end, destruction, annihilation, completion" (p. 418).

Both references to kalah are in Volume IV. Alephb (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This is amazing and you are wonderful. I will figure out how to insert these--but not today because we are still 'holidaying' here! Soon! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ooops! Found one more--"wicked" (rĕšāʿîm). Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And two more I neglected to list: gazal and asaq. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

something on the difference between the verb and the noun? haram and herem? Okay I'll stop now-- :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I keep thinking I've extricated myself from the ongoing conflict at The Bible and Violence, and then I find myself dragged back in. It's nothing personal or against you, but I simply am not going to comment on anything relating to that page anymore. I would be happy to work with you in the future, and I think you have promise as a Wikipedia editor, but it appears that the only way I'm going to be able to get myself out of dealing with this endless situation is to recuse myself entirely. Alephb (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

What did I say? I'm sorry! I thought you were helping me with references. Did I say something to cause you to change your mind? How have you been dragged back into conflict? I thought you might want to check to be sure I used your material correctly--but it's just in my sandbox--there's no conflict there--and it's okay to just say no. I am terrifically sorry if I have done something I shouldn't have. You've been nothing but great and I wouldn't do anything to distress you--knowingly--for the world. Please forgive me--I guess I'm an idiot--but I don't quite know what I did--but I'm still sorry because you're clearly distressed. Has something happened that I don't know about?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You've said nothing offensive to me. No need to apologize It's just that there is one article I would really rather not be involved with, and yet if I look over my talk page, that's the one article that you keep pulling me back to. Really, you are free to continue working on it indefinitely. As far as I can see, you seem to be in what appears to be a permanent state of Just a few more edits, then I'll finally be done with this article. But it's been most of 2017 that you've been working at it, and as far as I can see the only way to be done editing the article is to be done editing the article. There's no need to call yourself an idiot, and no need to worry about me being in distress. It's just that you want to keep working on The Bible and Violence, and I'd like to work on almost anything except The Bible and Violence. As far as I can tell, the only way I can get to my desired goal of not working on The Bible and Violence is by deciding to not work on The Bible and Violence. And while it might seem arbitrary to do that right this very moment, there's no time like the present. If I don't draw an arbitrary line somewhere, I would find myself working on it indefinitely. My talk page used to have a lot of variety in it. Now it's practically all about the one article I don't want to work on, and I'm course-correcting to fix that problem. Alephb (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I won't talk to you about it anymore. As long as you're not pissed at me! Let's get started on something else. I'll never mention it again.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No pissedness here. Let me know when you're ready, and I'd suggest we tackle some new articles -- either the ones I suggested above, or if you've noticed Wikipedia is missing some articles, I'd be happy to work on those. Although I'm pretty good at conveying how not-pissed I am in person, tone is harder to convey on the internet. It's probably one of Wikipedia's biggest problems, and part of why we're sorta dysfunctional here. Alephb (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank goodness! I have been trained not to do too many projects at once. It is also my nature to attempt to finish one thing before moving on to the next. It means I focus--but I can see how waiting on me could definitely become an issue. So no more waiting. We will put the ugliness behind us and move on to higher ground. I am getting one of those Hebrew lexicons and will do the remaining references myself, so no worries! It will be good for me to start doing myself. I have no other ideas for articles--my one idea was already done some time back apparently. I thought learning about something new sounded genuinely interesting. How about if you just pick one that you are interested in and I will begin randomly searching for knowledge and the ability to follow your lead and fake sounding intelligent?  :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

One project at a time is probably good general advice. Certainly my life always works better the more focused I am. I usually only get an idea for an article once in a great while, sometimes when I see a redlink that shows Wikipedia doesn't have an article of its own. I came up with the ideas for writing Horvat Maon, Khirbet Ibziq, Puncta extraordinaria, and Puqudu that way. My other leads have come from another editor who suggested I write Acts of Pusai, History of Karka, Martyrdom of Simeon, Pseudo-Orpheus, The Martyrdom of Pionius the Presbyter and his Companions, History of Mar Qardagh, and The Chronicle of Arbela. Those last ones, because you can see the red links, have not been written yet. A few other I didn't start, but wrote most of the current content: List of minor biblical figures, List of minor biblical places, List of minor biblical tribes. As you can see, I tend to focus on obscure things.

I'm thinking of starting with Pionius. The next few articles I want to write are likely to be extremely short, because there's very little material for them on Google Books. For these, I basically just collect all the information I can, bit by bit, and try to put it into some kind of encyclopedic-looking format, until I can't find too many and am too lazy to go looking in an actual library for stuff. Alephb (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

All right. I've started The Martyrdom of Pionius. It's still very much a baby article. I'll probably build it one sentence at a time, little by little, as I have time. Alephb (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That's actually the one that sounded the most interesting to me too! So good choice. Where did you start it? How will we divide this up? Or will we bother? Just bring what we find? This is exciting! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia article right now. You can click The Martyrdom of Pionius and it will take you right there. What I've got there is a start that I've put together so far tonight. I figure we can just both add a sentence here or there whenever the urge strikes, and either of us can reorganize it as necessary as the sentences start to pile up. Right now there's three little paragraphs: an introduction, a summary of the story, and what little discussion I've found so far about the story. For now I wouldn't even divide it into subtitled sections, although if we're lucky and find enough information we might need to. Alephb (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If you bothered to read my message on the Missing Verses article, I am revising that article from now until Feb 14, 2018. This means I put stuff in and insert the citations later. PLEASE DO NOT TAMPER WITH MY WRITING WHILE I AM WRITING IT! However feel free to make comments/suggests in the Talk section.

Sussmanbern (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Sussmanbern, I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia works. First off, no one owns any content on Wikipedia. One can't make some artificial date and then ban other people from editing an article until that date. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy: WP:OWNERSHIP.

Second, to qualify for preservation on Wikipedia, material needs to already be sourced. This is also Wikipedia policy: WP:V. From that page: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. . . . All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captains, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. . . . Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

If you'd like to work on drafting material, consider using your sandbox sandbox. In particular, the new notice you've added at the very top of the page is not in line with Wikipedia policy, and should be removed per WP:OWNERSHIP. Alephb (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

'ô' is meant to represent the sound in English I guess is closest to 'aw', like in 'awe' or 'call'. It's not literally an 'o' like in 'phone'. Just clarifying, not trying to start something. יבריב (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing.

There's no need to guess at what sound is closest. There's a long history of transliterating Hebrew in a variety of reliable sources. They all render qamatz in these sorts of cases with some variant of /a/. I could get you examples if you like. I would agree with you that something like "awe" and "call" is what we're looking for here. It's just that "ô" is a very unusual way of doing that. You've said before you got this idea from the IPA. Where in IPA documentation is ô used that way? It would be good if we could hammer out some agreed-upon standards for this kind of thing. Alephb (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: User talk:יבריב, there is in fact a Wikipedia policy here. It's MOS:HE. On biblical topics, we should follow the SBL handbook general-purpose style. The details of that also exist online here, in section 5.1.2. Alephb (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don´t remember seeing any WP-discussions about him, can you link to any "good" ones? Also, I was asked to give you this: [17]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, ok.[18]. But apart from that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that was enough. And a little more. I shall not mention his name in your presence again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha fair enough. And the video was delightful! Alephb (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay I read them too--but dude was actually referencing him in an article--when his theory is still on shaky toddler legs and can't even walk on its own yet--not smart! He might as well quote Baker's Evangelical Dictionary...  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if you've already heard this one, Jen. But have you heard the expression "verifiability, not truth"? Alephb (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the punchline of a joke right? I just can't remember why it's funny... So you enjoyed the video? Next time when I am singing 'make it so' you'll get it! You are probably not a trekkie though huh? Too sophisticated and mature right? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not a trekkie. If I watched a Star Trek episode, I couldn't even tell you which was in Picard and which one is Yoda.

"Verifiability, not truth" is another summation of Wikipedia policy. I'm you've come upon the idea by now, just not the slogan. The idea is that things have to be based on what the reliable sources (in Wikis weird sense of reliable) say, and not on what true. This confuses people. If scientists thought the world was flat, for example, the Wikipedia community would write that the world is flat. Whether or not the world is really flat is no concern of ours. This drives some people crazy. But it's the only way to keep Wikipedia from turning into a more argumentative place than it really is. Since you seem to enjoy our weird expressions, I thought you might enjoy that one.

A wiki designed to find out what the truth is would never get off the ground. A wiki designed to find out what the established sources say and summarize it -- that's doable. Still very difficult and often controversial, but mostly doable, for most topics. Alephb (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

So you totally didn't get the joke then did you? Fell flat on my face again!  :-O Yes--another weird wiki-speak--but completely understandable since we don't do original work. Those who pursue truth are the people we quote. I often regret not being one of them. Such is life. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Yoda is Star Wars--Star WARS--not Star Trek. You know--speak mockery of my religion all you want but don't dis my Star Trek. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The internet is a terrible place for jokes, and nuance, and so on. I knew you were familiar with the concept, because I've seen you talk about it. Just wasn't sure about the phrase. And then once I define a phrase, I can't help but write a whole essay on it, because I have extremely fast typing skills and I need to use them every now and then. Alephb (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The "can´t tell the difference between ST/SW" is almost a genre in itself:[19]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Familiar with the concept of terrible jokes? Ha ha! Yes--also the other! I am a crap typist personally and often defer Wiki-work till late at night when I am falling asleep at the keyboard and making stupid mistakes--when my forehead crashes down onto the keyboard it sometimes types some very strange things that I look at the next day and think--what the heck?!? Before doing it all over again... Working when you're half awake is not smart--but it's the time I have. Besides--you guys are too cool not to hang out with when I can--even if one of you doesn't know the difference between SW and ST. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alepb--can you get me a page number in your Cline's for the word bâdal? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Would this request have anything to do with The Bible and Violence? Alephb (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ummmm... which is more likely to get me the reference? Lying or telling the truth?Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

OKay, fine, yes, that's what it's for--but you don't have to be involved in anything but giving me a page number--but if You're not comfortable with that--nevermind, it's okay. It doesn't have a reference now and I will just leave it that way. I haven't bought a book yet that's all. Things seem to have settled down over there anyway. I am trying to be more community minded and I even think Jytdog is trying too--he's only insulted me once lately and has actually fixed a couple things without any comment at all. Besides. It's pretty much done I think. No worries. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long it will take, but my current strategy is to continue not being helpful on anything related to this page, and see if, eventually, it leads to me not finding the latest installments of the Adventures of Jenhawk and Jytdog on my talk page. Alephb (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That isn't a fair comment.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That wording I used definitely wouldn't be my first, or second, or third, or fourth choice of words when trying to explain that I do not want to be involved with that toxic mess of a six-month-old edit-warring extravaganza. But all my previous attempts at getting myself left out of the quarrelling failed. So, since you insist on me being involved, fine. I'll do what I can to get the administrators to lock the page so that you and Jytdog can't keep going on like this. Alephb (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

First, I didn't ask you to get involved in anything. I didn't mention a single thing except can you give me one page number on one reference. Who knows what that was about? You didn't need to know --as per your request to be excluded from that discussion--I honored that. You could have just done that and left it there with no problems--or said no if you wanted to. Second, there was no conflict involved with that reference. Third, there was no conflict going on at the article at the time at all. Lastly, if you feel involved at this point, it's my opinion it is your own doing. You mentioned the article. I didn't. This seems like an over reaction to a request for a reference from my point of view. You have a perfect right to decide what's best for you. I totally support that, but I don't believe I violated that. I said I would never mention that article to you again and I didn't. I haven't. I told you I needed to finish it for myself, I have invested too much time and effort to just abandon months of work. But I have not in any way insisted on you being involved. Be fair. I did not bring up the article to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's not argue over the exact definition of "mentioning the article." That would as pointless as anything else in this unending drama. I'll try to make myself as clear as possible. I don't want to edit the article. I don't want to provide references for the article. I don't want to provide references for the article while winking and pretending the work I'm doing isn't for the article. I don't want to have to discuss whether or not a particular discussion is "about the article," or "about the conflict" or "directly involved" or "indirectly involved." I don't want to get baited into technically being the one who "mentions" the article first when you come asking for help with the article. I don't want to have to repeatedly justify the exact details of how I phrase my requests to be uninvolved with the article.

I'm not going to apologize for that, and I'm not going to ask you to apologize for anything, because clearly your request for me to give you references seemed like a reasonable thing to you at the time. I am just going to repeat, as clearly as I can and as many times as I have to, that I do not want to be involved in any way, shape, or form, with this article.

Sooner or later, either you, Jytdog, or both are going to get blocked for edit-warring if you both keep reverting each other. And I do not want to do anything, no matter how slight, that could be taken as encouraging either of you to continue your quest to keep prolonging this useless edit-war. Alephb (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ouch. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

We've recently done what I consider some very good work together, and I think your presence at Wikipedia is valuable, and (except for one article), I am always happy to hear from you and see what you're working on. Part of the reason I want to avoid discussing that article is that, in every other way, I think we work together very well, and if I haven't offended you too much I'd be delighted to continue working together. Alephb (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Give me some time to lick my wounds. I should have listened to you sooner and walked away from that toxic environment--and stayed away--back when you told me to. I got too invested. I am having to remind myself the article is not "mine" and that your actions will help in the long run, but right now I am hurting a little over how all this went down. It was right for Wiki, I see that, and no doubt even right for me, and I will be back, because we do work together quite well and produce good quality material, and I like you, but I'm going to break from Wiki altogether for a bit, recover a little. I'm sorry to have caused you so much aggravation. I don't quite understand all of this you know. I went and asked for help early on and arbitration turned me down--they sent me back to him. Nevermind. I'll work it through. Later Captain. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jenhawk77, you are right that I was overly harsh, and I apologize. I really wanted to get the whole damn conflict out of my head, and I nearly bit your head off over a single reference. That was dumb, not to mention counter-productive. In my attempt to stay away from Wiki-drama I hypocritically got all dramatic myself. I need to work on my patience, and it would probably be smart for me as well to walk back my involvement in Wikipedia a little bit and focus more on real life. I've got my talk page set up so that I get notifications when someone posts on it, so even if I'm not editing, you or anyone else can get ahold of me there.

It's not necessarily an excuse, but I am sometimes just as lost as you are with how conflict works around here. The Wiki format means that nothing is ever permanently resolved and that a lot of people who edit long-term are the kind of people who are attracted to that kind of environment. Plus the fact that it's mostly people who don't know each other working from behind pseudonyms doesn't help. I suspect that a lot of the most aggressive people here would be perfectly well-adjusted people to deal with as family members or co-workers. I need to take my own advice and stay out of it more. I think, too often, we are all this guy: [20].

For myself, I'm going to try to spend at least the next month or two of Wikipedia editing (to the extent that I am editing) focusing on creating new content, rather than wrestling over existing content. Alephb (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is very gracious of you and I appreciate it. All of us can have a little pique now and then, but this is kind and I think demonstrates who you really are--both here and in the real world. I think you are one of the good guys and this has done nothing to change that opinion. Anonymity is definitely a contributor to misbehavior--I call it the "Facebook Syndrome"--where people allow their inner devils free run in ways they would never do in real life--and once it's in print, you can't take it back. But this will turn out for the best--it will--I hadn't realized how far down the rabbit hole I had gone with that article until this jerked me up short--which just shows how much I needed it. I was way too invested and needed to let go and couldn't seem to completely do so. Now I can because I must. The end result will be good.

And the B&V article is pretty much completed--small changes may be in its future but probably no more large ones--and look at it, think of where we started and what it looked like with all its Bible references and no sources--it's genuinely encyclopedic now, it does a good job of discussing the topic from a neutral pov and different points of view, it's thorough--well documented--(although I did not finish doing Graeberg's references for Samuel before getting banned). He'll just have to go do those himself. The rest of it is well-sourced and I think the article has turned out to be high quality--which it was not before. Jytdog contributed good work, Graeberg did a lot, you contributed, and between us all we produced something worthy of Wikipedia that wasn't before us. Many obstacles had to be overcome to accomplish it. It took real persistence and commitment--and now it is time--past time--to let that go and move on.

New content is definitely the way to go. I vote for Elam. All will be well with us. You're still my Captain.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something, because something in your wording made me wonder if you were aware. You haven't been banned from editing the article. Everyone has been banned from editing the article. I can't edit it, Grabergs can't edit, etc. Only administrators can. A request for page protection is a way to cool down the action on a page without any person in particular getting in Wiki-trouble. You, personally, still have a clean record as far as official sanctions are concerned. Alephb (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

OH! I did not understand that! Okay, that helps a little I guess. The notice only had mine and Jytdog's name on it so I didn't know it wasn't just us. I am glad to know I haven't been sanctioned in my first year here -- thank you for telling me. Graeberg has some good ideas about new articles too. He wants to do one on humor in the Bible which he says there are actually sources on! I need to get involved in something else that's for sure. I am piddling away at my persecution thing in my sandbox. I think I will just put a couple paragraphs in the existing article though. It's interesting but not perhaps whole article worthy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

They were actually more "articles you might like to read/edit" suggestions, apart from humour. They had wikilinks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's more of that Wiki-jargon -- page protection. We are all banned together. What the administrator was trying to do, in their jargony way, was to explain that the page was being locked down because of the edit war, but that they didn't see things as severe enough to pursue sanctions. Now, on a locked page, if you see a typo or something, you can always put a request for an edit on the talk page, and usually an administrator will go ahead and make the edit themselves. However, they are unlikely to make very substantial changes in response to a request unless it's something very necessary.

If we do make a humor in the Bible article, we should start it before Grabergs gets a chance to put that ugly British spelling "Humour" in it. I feel a little sick just thinking of all the time people have wasted misspelling words by adding extra -u's to them. Alephb (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you´re being ethnically insensitive again. And of course, you loose here per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic. Brits have it, Americans don´t. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine. You go write the article Humour in the Authorised Version, and I'll write Humor in the American Standard Version. Alephb (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah? What about the KJV that rules them all? Nevermind. Creator's choice it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm saying something you probably already know, but KJV is just the American name for the Authorised Version. We could even have Humour in the Authorised Version and Humor in the King James Version as a deuling pair of articles. Alephb (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not actually know that. Makes my reply a bit of nonsense, but it´s not the first time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Here I was, not sure if you were just unaware, or entirely aware and making a clever and subtle point about how the term "KJV", an American name for a British-spelled book, undercut my own idea about neatly dividing topics into American verses British pairs. Alephb (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don´t think it´s something the general non-english speaker is likely to know. We can always continue the discussion at Talk:Humour/Spelling, or pick another topic in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OMG!! Graebergs! Don't get all serious now! Alephb made a joke! A clever joke! At your expense! I am laughing so hard I can hardly stand it! Well--it turns out I am the perfect Wiki companion for both of you. I started school in Argentina where we had a British teacher for half the Day. I learned to read and spell--and write my numbers--in the British fashion--then we moved back to the States and I had to relearn everything the American way--so I know both. Every now and then I get confused and can't remember which is which...and have been known to do both in the same article! :-) You'll have to watch me on that!

Okay, so we will share the camaraderie of all being banned together. Thank you. I probably won't attempt to take advantage of asking an admin to do anything--I will genuinely try to just see this time as a reprieve. But I am informing you up front there is one sentence I intend to re-insert eventually. Its removal makes an entire paragraph and subsequent discussion confusing--it now discusses something that isn't there-- and it misrepresents how it is discussed in the sources--and that's just dumb--but I swear, I will then work no more on that article and will even remove it from my watchlist. Or I could ask the admin if you think it would be good--then never go back there at all. Instead I will make jokes and misspell words and work with the two of you on obscure projects and will learn the ways of Wiki well with no edit warring. And no drama. Well maybe a little drama every now and then--but funny drama! Humour--or humor--as the case may be. :-) We will both have to learn to take care too--Aleph's humor/humour is subtle and clever and assumes you will be too--and I am not! We could be in trouble! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Graebergs--I did look at those links but the best link of all links of all time is Lamest edit wars--there's one they say has been going on for six years! The one about gasoline/petrol/benzine/fossil fuel was hilarious. I feel a little less stupid than I did before now! I'm actually starting to feel a little better looking at all of that! Six years--Holy cow--or divine bovine--venerated hooved mammal--nevermind!Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity is a charming one. I don´t know if you have come across the Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017 pages, but sometimes interesting stuff turns up there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Macianica. I noticed that recently you've changed the birth date to Arphaxad from the year 1658 to 1656, and then adjusted the various following characters a similar two years. Here's my question. If Noah is born in 1056, and the Flood occurs when Noah is 600 (Genesis 7:6), and then Arphaxad is born two years after the Flood (Genesis 11:10), in what year is Arphaxad born? Alephb (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Sorry about the late response. I have recently edited and annotated the figures back to the AM1658 birth date for Arphaxad accordingly to Genesis 11:10. Thank you for catching that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macianica (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So I think I have found about all I can on good old Pionius. At first I thought it was really dull, but then I enjoyed it and learned a few things--with no fighting and "a little help from my friends"--music reference! (You have to guess since it is not SW or ST.)  :-) So what's next? I'm enjoying this and I am learning--work in your sandbox first--don't post till everything has been checked in the light of day! Good new rules for me huh? I look forward to hearing from you and being able to 'make it so, make it so , make it so.' (Now that you get it you can laugh.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were a Nickelback fan. Sandbox, article space -- whatever works best for you. I've been making more use of my own sandbox lately. Also, having other editors write most of the content works well too. You and Grabergs did far more for that Pionius article than I expected. I thought maybe we'd get four paragraphs out of what was available on Google books. I really need to amend my main page to reflect that I didn't write most of the Pionius article.

If you want something next, I've got kind of two directions I'd like to go in. Let me know what sounds best to you. I'll do them both sooner or later, so it's all a question of timing. I want to write an article on the Sukkalmah period in Elamite history (something like 1900-1500 BC/BCE). I'm on a quest to have comprehensive coverage of Elam on Wikipedia, dammit, and I will not be happy till the List of rulers of Elam has links running out from all those king names. I'd also kind of like to do Chronicle of Arbela. I don't know what the Chronicle of Arbela is at all, but it was suggested by the same character who suggested Pionius, so it can't be that bad. Alephb (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you've got an article you'd rather we do, I'm all ears. Sooner or later I'm sure you'll find something you'd like to see on Wikipedia that's not there. Alephb (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to reflect on your main page that Pionius was a joint effort, that's fair, but I don't think Graeberg or I care anything about credit really. We all worked on it, it was fun, we did a reasonable job--you guys cleaned up some of my craziness--it's all good! I say it sounds like some passion exists for Elam! I know nothing about Elam! I recently read over an article on persecution of Christians in Rome and they made the mistake of putting up three "canned" reasons without adequate support. It fired me up of course! I am trying to decide whether or not wiki would support an entire article on the possible causes of persecution--there are a ton of books out there--I am up to 36 sources so far--it's really interesting reading--or if I should just beef up what's there. It was also controversial several years ago but the fires have died--perfect timing for me I am thinking. But I can work on that at the same time we do something--I won't suck you into anything controversial I promise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, pretty much everything I learned about Elam I learned in the past few weeks. I found a huge List of rulers of Elam and was kind of shocked that it was listing all these hundred or so kings, and you couldn't find a bunch of them on Wikipedia. My entire previous experience with Elam consisted of reading Genesis 14, looking on a map, and going, "Why the hell is there a story about a king of Elam ruling over Canaanites? And why the hell is a man with 318 servants successfully attacking this guy?" It's not so much a genuine passion about Elam as an annoyance that no one else has written the articles yet.

For a topic as obscure at the Martyrdom of Pionius, what we've got up there is exceptionally good. Articles like that just don't typically get that level of coverage at Wikipedia.

If there are 36 books on the topic, there is a decent chance Wikipedia would support a stand-alone article on it. However, a lot of editors get really, really ticked off when their first article gets deleted, and after the Bible-and-Violence fiasco someone with my appetite for risk wouldn't do it. Your mileage may vary. That would be a hell of a "my first article" to try, but who knows? Maybe it would work out. Alephb (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a link to Elam? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I kind of like the sound of the 'Chronicle of Arbella' too--never heard of it before but I will bet you all the coupons I have that we can do as well as we did on Pionius. Which was pretty quick and easy!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

All right, then. Here's Chronicle of Arbela. I did most of the work myself without any help, but I'm sure you (and possibly Grabergs) will be able to find something that I missed. Alephb (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What?!? Just wanted to go off and play in your little sandbox by yourself huh? Actually--I can relate! If you did it and you're happy with it that's cool by me. I won't look.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, no. By all means, look. I could use some feedback on whether my article fully captures everything an encyclopedia should have to say about the Chronicle. Alephb (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

When I stop laughing I will answer. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I started work on that separate article like I told you, then decided it would never get accepted because the subject is discussed in other places--then took almost everything I had collected, and instead of culling the material, I just stuck it into the existing article. That was stupid of me! I really am going to have to stop editing at 2 in the morning. My judgment isn't good. The existing article didn't need that--it needed the addition of about three points and that's all. But Smeat75 has dealt with me being a bull in a china shop with grace and reasonableness. He has an emotional investment in this article like I did with B&V and I completely understand that. He is justifiably proud of his work. He doesn't want to change it--but it doesn't need as much change as I first put in. That wasn't about what the article needed--that was about me--but in my defense, when he pointed that out I agreed immediately. I made an unthinking error and then agreed it was an error and backed off. We are not having a controversy over it--honestly. I agree with him--it was too much. I then asked only that three important facts from my material be added in--and if he wants to do it himself that's okay. After he did a rewrite, I distressed him by saying I was disappointed he hadn't added those points. But we are working that out without any real conflict. Smeat75 has been great. I have no complaints about him. I would just like to see those three facts added. They are significant to the topic. Sorry you got involved. Pretend this didn't happen. I made a mess but I am cleaning it up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope it works out well for both of you. I am glad to see that both of you seem to be working hard to listen to each other. Alephb (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

And it's all done now. I thought you might like to know. What's there is a combination of material from both of us, agreed upon by both of us, without any recriminations or even any reverting. I will do no more there. Some details could be added to the rest, but nothing substantive. I will not be attempting a first article on 'causes' either: it would be a tremendous amount of work through gazillions of resources--with my 36 books I had only scratched the surface of the material out there--it must be one of the most written upon subjects in history--and after doing all the work I felt like I would get to a place where Wiki would reject it--that it was at best--at best--a fifty-fifty chance wiki would go for it. It probably really needs doing, but I don't think Wiki will ever do it simply because smatterings are mentioned in multiple places. So I am done with that.

However, I have to say I think this turned out as a win all around. I'm glad to have had an experience of disagreement that went well and was handled with some grace. Smeat75 was awesome. After having caused the problem in the first place, I didn't too badly either. Some modern scholarship (since Gibbon 200 years ago) is a little better represented in the article, and it is tighter and better organized. The article is improved, and I continue to learn--usually from making one error after another. This is me in real life too... Be bold! Fall on your face! Be bold again! I blame it on my Danish-viking ancestry--now if I were Swedish like Graebergs I would be much wiser about everything--right?  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it all worked out in the end. Alephb (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. I appreciate it. Alephb (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If what I have done passes muster--this time--I have double-checked everything--I think--(and I believe there is no more Ellis anywhere, neither quotes nor information)--and if you are okay with what I have done and don't have a request for more, or less, in any particular area, then I have nothing left to add to this article. I have done all I can do on Arbela. The rest is yours to finish up as you please.

I have to say I am enjoying the bolas more than I thought I would. Maybe the difference is new articles, because I get to write big blocks of material and no one cares--maybe it's that no one cares about these articles but us, so there are no conflicts--or maybe it's that they're small, and it is possible to finish them with some actual clarity and organization--maybe all of the above--but whatever it is, you were 100% right. I'm enjoying them, and it's giving me time and space to develop a small amount of knowledge and still feel like I am accomplishing something. Anyway, thank you, it was good advice, and I'm grateful for all the help you've given, and I have really enjoyed what we have done together here.

Did you see Jytdog showed up on my talkpage and was nice and offered some good advice? Maybe we will be able to bury the hatchet. Maybe some time away from the source of conflict really has cooled everything down enough things really will get better. I didn't believe it at first, I was feeling pretty stomped flat there for awhile, but I am almost feeling--tentatively--hopeful now.  :-)

Since we have two partnerships under our belt, and they have turned out pretty okay, I would like to do another one if you aren't tired of me building roads with a shovel. :-) I pinged Graebergs about humor but haven't heard back. Would it be okay to start Elam? Or would you prefer I moved on to something else? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll need a little time to read through the Chronicle of Arbela article through. I've sort of procrastinating on finishing that "narrative" section, because I've been procrastinating on making a decision on how I want to approach it. I'm glad to hear that obscure articles are enjoyable for you. I like obscure articles because there's already so many talented editors working on the popular articles, and so I feel like any help I give there is likely to be less small than in the middle of nowhere, where articles are run down or non-existent.

Jytdog really is a generally benevolent character. When he thinks an article is being pulled in a bad direction, he will often disagree hard (as you are well aware!), but I don't think he generally holds grudges against well-meaning editors. I'm not going to attempt a long-distance psychological summary on the guy, but I'm not at all surprised to see him being helpful. I watch about 1300 articles at this point -- I see every change made to them, every day. In that watching, I see him all over the place, hundreds upon hundreds of edits, tirelessly working to improve the encyclopedia. In terms of total constructive contributions, I think it's safe to say there aren't ten other editors who do more for Bible-related editors than he does, at least over the past year. He's not perfect, and the two of us have had disagreements at times about what are the best and most productive ways to approach some things, but it would be a serious loss to Bible-related Wikipedia were he not around doing his thing.

I have no problem working together on more articles as long as you don't have any problem with how I bounce from article to article. I try not to make promises about exactly how much of an article I'm going to write in a certain timeframe, but I'm game to work on another one. Creating and growing new articles is something I intend to keep doing here, but it's still something I spend a minority of my Wiki-time on. Especially when my mind is a little tired, I often gravitate toward repeatedly fixing little formatting and other issues.

Now, there already is an Elam article, but I've got a number of more obscure Elam-related topics that I think could use coverage, like the Sukkalmah period. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to help out, whether on Elam or what have you. Alephb (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds of articles!! Holy Bovine! No wonder you people kept going on about a sentence at a time! Good night nurse! Getting yelled at and receiving harsh accusations is not benevolent--but it was all no doubt made worse by my not having a clue what he was trying to accomplish. I don't imagine in any disagreement you two might have had he has ever treated you in the manner he treated me. But okay, I am willing to let bygones be bygones. I'll try. I have no problem with anything you do. I was thinking "The History of Mar Qardagh" might be a good follow up too. I had no idea Syrian Christianity was such a rich field. It's fascinating. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's why I picked generally benevolent. The exceptions, well, I can't fix. The History of Mar Qardagh is on my list of articles to do. Sounds good. Alephb (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You are never required to 'fix' anyone else--in my view, it's all any of us can do to cope with ourselves!  :-) So this was an experience of his benevolence and perhaps over time there will be more and I will come to the same conclusion you have--I look forward to that--because I do believe in cutting people slack for being human and fallible and all that stuff. No one's perfect--least of all me--and if I want to get a little tolerance it's only fair that I give some too. I may start on the 'History' but Graebergs answered late last night--for me--and said he would be starting the humor thing sometime this next week. I do want to help him with that if I can. OMG! If I do both I may be reduced to a sentence at a time! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, there is no deadline. And I still haven't written a proper narrative section for Arbela, so perhaps I shouldn't be in a hurry to start any new articles anyhow. Alephb (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to start Mar Qardagh, if it's okay with you, but I don't want to do it without you. I am not yet confident enough that I don't need someone checking my work.  :-( So if I do humor as well, perhaps I will learn to do smaller sections at a time! I tend to get focused and dive deep--I should probably learn to come up for air more often... It could actually be good for me--but I fervently hope "hundreds of articles" at a time is nowhere in my future! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

1342 articles is a lot less than it sounds. Maybe 20 of them get edited on any given days, and I'm mostly scanning those edits to check for vandalism or other stuff that messes up articles. Most of the 20 articles, there's no problem. So it's not like I'm writing 1300 articles; it's more likely cleaning up little problems on 5 or 10. Anyhow, you're welcome to start on whatever you like, and I'd be happy to look over your shoulder. Alephb (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanx, but I don't just want you looking over my shoulder, I also want your participation and contributions, so with everything else you have going--can you? Obviously cleaning up after me could become a full time job--but it's probably not one you want.  :-) Can I have more than one article at a time that I have started? I started a draft on one of the books I read for B&V--is there a special format for a book review? I am having trouble finding material on the book itself. Are you allowed to discuss the merits of the content? Maybe its methodology? Is that original work then? I am a little at sea on this but trying to learn. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The next week to ten days are likely to be ones where my free time will be limited, but after that, I think I could set aside some time for more substantial editing. Yes, you can have more than one article at a time that you've started. Now, if you were just creating a bunch of one-sentence articles, there's a chance some of them would wind up deleted, I think. But because Wikipedia mostly doesn't have a concept of a "finished" article, there'd be no way to limit people to one "unfinished" article, if that makes sense.

I don't think Wikipedia does book reviews, per se. An article about a book would be just like an article about anything else -- there would need to be substantial coverage of the book in multiple reliable sources, and the bulk of the article would need to be built around that coverage. If there's not enough coverage to do that, there's not enough coverage for an article. I don't know for certain that there's no exception for articles about books, but I would be surprised if there was.

Are you allowed to discuss the merits of the content? Well, if you mean, are you allowed to make a personal case for why you think the book is worthy, then no. If you mean, are you allowed to include information from reliable sources (like peer-reviewed book reviews) that speak to the merits of the book, then yes. But if you were writing something like a "book review" that laid out your opinions on the book, then yes, that would fall afoul of the original research policy.

I took a look at your draft page, and I assume you're talking about the book by Margaret McDonald. You'd need a good deal more than the one book review that's currently up there. It would help if the book were discussed in depth in other books. Alephb (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have so far only found two book reviews so I am thinking my first article is going to fall into the you-know-what--there's just not enough info out there. My hope is if I can add a sentence to it occasionally and keep it from timing out and being automatically deleted, then maybe someone else will write more on it eventually. I know it only has one sentence and one reference, and if I can't find more I will junk the article myself. (Here I am after all this time doing what you fussed at me to do--write one sentence--so don't start fussing at me about it!)

And no, I wasn't thinking of writing my own opinion of the book. Come on--I have learned one or two things. I know op-ed's not for an encyclopedia--what I was thinking specifically is that she used a couple of methods of analysis from sociology and anthropology--so by "discuss the merits of the content", what I meant was, would it be copacetic to digress into writing on the methods themselves? i.e. those specific approaches? Always citing second level sources, of course, but maybe filling in some discussion on the sociological approach she used-- since there is so little on the book itself. But maybe it just doesn't merit an article--there is not substantial coverage of it. It's going to sit there a long time I am thinking. So I needed to know if I could start other articles--but I just went and tried to see what would happen--and it worked--so I answered one of my own questions. :-) Yay me!

It's here--with one sentence in it. [21] Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. You were asking how far afield you could go before you'd be considered too far off topic. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for you there. But if there's only two reviews about the book, and no sources other than book reviews that give the book substantial coverage, I think, unfortunately, that the book doesn't reach Wikipedia's notability standards at this point. Alephb (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Of course you're right. I reserve the right to leave it sit there in the hopes it will one day! Yeah--I kind o' went afield a bit in Pionius and Arbela. Although history and sociology are things people here like to include, so maybe that's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, "context" is good, while "off topic" is bad. Where one stops and the other starts is sort of in the eye of the beholder, which in Wiki-terms means, "Use your best judgment and be aware that someone might revert." One advantage of my part-time WP:GNOME work is that gnomes don't often see their work torn apart. Alephb (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You nailed it--that's a perfect summary of what I was asking--where does "context" cross over into "off topic"--and now I see that's one of the things Jytdog and I disagreed over: I said context, he said off topic. How does one even resolve a difference of point of view like that? We didn't resolve it either did we? We got consensus--as though majority rule has a clue about what's actually right--but isn't the same as resolution is it? Ah well, I will probably be taking that one apart for awhile yet.

If you are a gnome--God help the rest of us! Gnomes secretly rule the world then! Well--I am Puppy, and you are Captain Gnome and we are on a mission to make Wikipedia better than ever! If we can just figure out that dang citation sheet!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, a real gnome would just stick to zero-conflict, tiny improvement sorts of edits. I'm not a real gnome. I just gnome part-time. What's this citation sheet business? Alephb (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what I call Wiki's "cheat sheet". [22] I have pretty much memorized everything on it--now that you and Jytdog told me I don't need it... Ah the ironies of life on Wikipedia! I guess this all makes me a part time gnome then too! A puppy-gnome... can there be such a thing?!? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No I don't qualify for wiki-gnomeship yet do I? I am still too "bold"--jumping in where angels fear to tread! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That cheat sheet is excellent -- I learned a lot of the stuff on there bit by bit. It's great that a lot of it is in one place, and you'll still need a lot of it. Even if you've got a citation tool, it's still more convenient most of the time to do italics, bolding, linking, piping, linking to sections, strike-throughs, citation needed tags, and section headings by hand.

Wikipedia needs gnomes, but not just gnomes. Producing content, for the most part, is not gnome behavior. If you were wandering about proofreading and fixing little formatting bugs all the time, then you'd be a gnome. It's not really something to aspire to unless you want to. If my grandfather, an English professor, had been born a generation later, he would have been a prolific Wiki-gnome. He once showed me a list of the funniest real-life typos he had come across in his reading. It was at least three pages long, type-written. And to this day I have no idea, other than the vaguest one, on what he thinks about any of the hot-button political issues or any of the hot-button religious controversies within his denomination. He keeps his opinions to himself, avoids controversies, and seeks diligently for typos. He would go for a run every day and stare at the ground, looking for pennies that people dropped. He wrote his master's thesis on how a particular Catholic novelist portrayed her Protestant characters, and it was absolutely flawless grammatically, and probably uninteresting to 99% of people. He kept a daily diary: just a paragraph or two a day, but for decades. To this day they are all in a set of filing cabinets which also contain copies of just about every letter and email he ever wrote or received. You could read a hundred pages at a stretch without ever encountering any trace of conflict or his personal opinions: it was I went here, I visited such-and-such, here's an amusing thing one of my grandchildren did. He once showed me every thing he had ever written about me as a child in his diary. It was over one hundred pages of anecdotes: "Alephb said this today. Alephb and his little brother Alephc went to the zoo." From age 25 to 65, he worked one job, attended one church, and lived happily with his one wife. The last few years of his professor-hood, they would have an assembly for all the freshman, and the quirky highlight of the assembly was that they would have all the freshmen stand up. Then my grandfather would start calling out their names from memory, and they would sit down, one by one, until everyone was sitting. He found the whole exercise a little bit embarassing, but the other faculty coerced him into doing it because they knew he was into memorizing things. He missed the name of one girl one year. That's it. That's the gnome personality. The world needs gnomes, but not just gnomes.

You keep calling yourself a puppy. Is there some back-story I'm missing here? Alephb (talk)

OMG! That is the most amazing story! I loved it--I made my husband sit down and listen to it and I read it out loud to him! What a wonderful man your grandfather was. It reminded me a little of my father-in-law who was never involved in conflict no matter the provocation, and my husband who finds typos in library books and corrects them, and my Pastor who remembers all his parishioner's names--but your grand-dad did all of them! Absolutely astounding, really. We agreed here that we would have loved knowing him, that he would have been someone worth having in your life anyway you could get him--but what a lucky grand-son you were! He didn't record any of your failings or failures or little rebellions or any of the negative things common to every life, he just focused on the good, and wrote down all those little things about you that made you uniquely you in his eyes that said how much he loved you. And his colleagues--Aleph--that wasn't just that they knew he liked memorizing things--that was admiration--sheer total amazed astounded admiration at his memory--at that brilliant mind! And what a legacy he has left! What difference would one more opinion about politics make really? He left you what he thought was important--a legacy of quiet kindness, a gift for detail, and an example of good humor, peacefulness, deep, abiding dependable loyalty, and a fulfilled worthwhile happy life. If the entire world were like your grandfather this would be a much better place to live. As people of words, it is sometimes difficult for us to understand what is going with quiet laconic people, but I have learned to think of them as "iceberg" people--there is always more going on beneath the surface than is visible above. I think the old saying "still waters run deep" is more often true than not. A thinking man who loved detail--and his family--what a wonder! There aren't many like him left Aleph. You were blessed.

I apologize for not explaining "puppy"--but for some reason, just because I knew, I thought you knew-- by osmosis or something! I was harassing Graebergs about when he was EVER going to start the humor article, and his response was "Down puppy!" It made me laugh so hard I told him I was adopting it as my new nickname. I was not the almighty dog--I was Puppy! In view of everything that has gone on these last months--it seemed perfect--and somehow fitting.  :-)

Aleph, this probably sounds all nerdy and dumb, but I just want to say thank you for sharing that personal story with me. It's an honor. You have made Wiki a cool place for me, and I think that is not uncommon, I think you do that for a lot of people. I think you are a lot like your grandfather, going around quietly smoothing over the rough spots for all kinds of people, using your wonderful humor and your great mind, and making everyone better than they would be without you. It's a wonderful gift, and I am like your grand-dad's colleagues--just a little in awe. Even if I never wrote another thing on Wikipedia, I am better for having known you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

One thing I share with my grandfather is that I never quite know how to respond to flowery praise. Thanks for the kind thoughts. Last week, an old buddy of my grandfather's visited him, one of the real loud and social types, and says, "I'm proud of you, [Last name redacted]." And my grandfather says, "What did I do?" And the visitor says, "Just in general." And my grandfather stays silent for a few second, raises one eyebrow, looks at me, and says, "Well. How about that?"

It's been a pleasure working with you.

Looking back, I realized I exaggerated a bit. The thing with names is absolutely true, but I do know a tiny slice of his opinions on one politician. His memory is more or less shot now (when it comes to issues not immediately involving family members, whom he still all remembers, thank goodness), so he repeats himself. It's been at least a half-dozen that he's been watching TV, seen the most recent American president say something, and turned to me and said something like, "I can't remember -- has there ever been another president this rude?" And, of course, he watches Jeopardy every night. He also watches Wheel of Fortune, but consuming low-brow entertainment like that isn't his preference; it's part of the compromises that come with being married, and he doesn't complain. Alephb (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone told me once that it takes more grace to receive a gift than it does to give one, and ever since then I have watched and observed and I believe that to be true. When someone gives the gift of praise, accepting it with grace only requires a thank you, and you never fail at that. You're welcome. And thank you too. As you can tell, I am sort of at the opposite end from you and your grandfather. I am a demonstrative person. I hug a lot. I live in fear that if I die suddenly, the people I admire would never know how I felt about them, so I generally make sure and tell them regularly. I hope we continue as friends for a long time and that you end up being made uncomfortable enough to say thank you to me repeatedly!  :-)

Your grandfather's question about Trump is an interesting one--off the top of my head I would say no--at least not in modern times. I didn't vote for him and have been trying to cope with my feelings of shock and dismay that he got elected--you know, support your leaders because they're the leaders even if you don't much like the person. I have found it more difficult with him than any other leader so far in my life. But one thing has recently helped me. His son has tried to explain his dad is a "blue collar billionaire". Have you ever seen the television show "All in the Family" with Archie Bunker? I hated that show and wouldn't watch it, but it was a great hit here. Archie Bunker was a blue collar worker who was mouthy, opinionated and often wrong in his facts that formed those opinions, he was crude, rude and generally obnoxious, but he was also very much there for his family, had a good heart, was loyal and caring. Trump is a real life Archie Bunker. It doesn't make me like him more, but it helps me understand who he is and accept him more. I think he really does have America's best interests at heart and for him that means the ordinary people, and I can't fault that as a value. None of us who opposed him will ever admire him--but I think we may come to appreciate him--maybe especially once he's out of office! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Aleph where are you? I know you asked me to accept bouncing around to different articles but when will you bounce back to Arbela? Are you working on something else? I gave into temptation and worked on another Bible article. This time I made a case for what needed changing on the talk page first and then went and redid the problem section. No problems of any kind. You were right again.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm still in this situation: [23]. After about the 15th, I should have some time for substantial editing, and I'll start with Arbela, but after Arbela, I'm not making any promises. Alephb (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:Bishonen#Jytdog's_talk

I hope he comes back when he feels like it. And that he can look att the ants scurrying in that thread and smile, it's so... Wikipedian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope he's okay and that his family is okay. He has such a wonderful family.

What ants?! Speak for yourself--you puppy threatener-- you! Rolled up newspaper indeed! I should report you--but then I'd have to attempt to get public support -- figure out how to write a "proper" Rfc -- deal with admin--(after being rejected three times) -- when they finally show up to freeze access to everything rather than actually deal with the problem... nevermind --beat the damn puppy all you want...  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Slight misunderstanding here. Per the linked thread "he" meant Jytdog, who announced he was leaving WP (wasn't aware Alephb was missing). Seems to be back now, though, we'll see what happens. The "ants scurrying" was my impression of the editors in that thread. And you did say "growling". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay! I thought this was responding to the message immediately above this one--to Aleph--here on aleph's page--asking where he is. I completely overlooked the link. Didn't even look at it. My bad. In what way were the ants scurrying??--partying? But "he's" back now you say--so I missed it. Sigh...

I did say growling! But you did deserve it...  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

But only a little. :-) 21:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

But definitely draft space--for at least a week!--in the future--okay?Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, linked and read all that--all I can say is drama seems to follow him around, and there is a reason for that. While he is feeling sorry for himself for being accused, perhaps he will also do some thinking. Maybe in the long-run it will help him be more careful about doing that to others. So no partying--bummer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk, please do any complaining you need to do about Jytdog somewhere other than my talk page. Alephb (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ouch. This is where the conversation was. I was just answering. But I will certainly be more careful in the future. I apologize. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I might extend my semi-vacation from Wikipedia a bit longer to focus on other things, and when I come back I may spend my time editing on pages you aren't involved in. I don't even want to debate whether this particular variant on the old "complain about Jytdog" theme is different, or justified, or constitutes "just answering." I don't want to wait and see if you're actually going to drop the issue this time. I just want to go do other things, and since you're a grown-up, and I'm a grown-up, and life is too short to keep having the same damn tired conversation over and over with slight differences each time, I think I'll just go head off in a different direction for a while. Alephb (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Aleph and Jenhawk777, I miss you guys and hope you'll be back sooner or later. How else can you enjoy participating in relevant and important discussions such as Talk:Ophidiophobia#Indiana_Jones_BRRD,_if_anyone_is_interested? More importantly, noone has Arbela:d The Bible and humor yet and I obviously blame you for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aleph. I know you were mad at me, but I am hoping you are aware enough of irony that you haven't stayed mad at me for staying mad at somebody else. I am hoping you can forgive my ignorance and misbehavior, since you do seem able and willing to forgive others. I liked thinking we were friends. I liked working with you. You helped me find some of the good on Wiki and helped walk me through my stumbling beginnings on Wiki protocols, and I feel grateful for that. I don't want to be the reason you are gone from here. If you want to be gone for other reasons, that's your business and I won't interfere, but if you really do feel the fault is mine, I ask you to forgive me, and I promise I will be more careful in what I write on your talk page. Graebergs and I finished the Bible and humor and it looks like it is going to go up on the Do you know page. It's pretty cool. I hope you are well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jenhawk. I'm glad you are Graebergs are still working away. Please don't feel badly. Yes -- I do see the irony in me being mad at you for being mad at someone else. It really isn't you. You didn't commit any great evil. You didn't even commit any small evil. I'm not quite sure how to express what it is about Wikipedia that makes it so easy to be short-tempered here. But I know this -- I'm not short-tempered in real life, and I'd rather spend my time working on things that don't stress me out quite so much. It was time to move on. The way I expressed that didn't come out well at all. But it really was a good time to move on. I wish you all the best. Alephb (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I am so glad you answered! Thank you. I have been feeling badly about it since it happened. I was almost afraid to try reaching out but decided you were worth the effort. :-) You are the second person in as many days who has expressed to me the difficulties of dealing with conflicts and burn-out on Wiki, and as I said to them, it's just sad that all the good people are leaving and consigning Wiki to the cantankerous ones like me. If you are moving on for other reasons, that is entirely your business, I just wanted to be sure it wasn't because of me and to see if you were okay. How are your grandparents and the rest of your exceptional family? If you ever feel like chatting, please remember I am still here--largely because of you--and am happy to still be able to consider you my friend. Graebergs rocks--but I have missed your calm steady presence. I wish you all the best as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I'm not sure whether to feel proud or guilty that I had a hand in keeping someone on Wikipedia! If you're happy with it, I'm glad for you. I don't want to exaggerate things -- I wasn't persecuted on Wikipedia. 99% of the time, my edits were left alone. A lot of the time, it was even fun. But at times it was a little bit like painting a wall to remove graffiti while the graffiti artists were still doing their thing right in front of you. Or even just incompetent painters. In real life, despite the occasional graffiti or screw-up, someone owns the damn building and quickly escorts people off the premises for screwing things up. In Wikipedia, you first have to politely explain to the person that they're screwing up. Then you have to quote policies. Then you discuss, and discuss, and discuss, and discuss. Maybe, if the person spends weeks and weeks creating messes for others, they have to leave the work site -- for twenty-four hours! There's good reasons for the way it's set up, I suppose -- there is no better giant encyclopedia out there, so that says something.

It's really not that bad. In fact, if Wikipedia paid like my current (not wealthy, by any means) job, I'd probably quit and Wikipedia full time. Honest to goodness. But it's not something I'd do for free, just like I don't go paint people's houses for free. Your mileage may vary. It's good that we have different preferences, because a healthy civilization needs all kinds of different things done, including some people to care for the largest communal repository of knowledge, which, terrifyingly, is Wikipedia.

The friends I made at Wikipedia, including you, probably tempted me to prolong my stay here longer than I should have. Just like an awful factory job I once had where I stayed three years longer than I should have, running around in 95 degree heat like a dog frantically fixing machines, because I liked the people. Hell, maybe I'll be back at some point, but I have no plans to at the present.

Two of the grandparents are pretty clearly getting weaker, and one is gradually losing track of what day of the week it is and what room is his. But they all still know who I am, and they're all happy, most of the time, so thank goodness for that.

Though my politics aren't conservative, my temperment is. I really like situations where the lines of authority are clear, and everybody knows what they're supposed to be doing. I've been really getting into my work lately -- I manage the governmental-permitting and corporate-image-standards-keeping and customer-relations kinds of stuff for an extremely small company that handles brand imaging for an unusually large number of gas stations. It's going really well. I'm allowed to grow out my big red beard and wear steel-toed boots, but I also get to work in an office with air conditioning. I'm reading whole books more often and short internet articles less often. I'm visiting my family more. I exist a little less on the internet now and a little more in the physical world.

I took a quick glance and the Bible and humor page, and it looks a lot more substantial than it was when I saw it last. Clearly a great deal of careful attention went into it. I was almost tempted to start removing contractions, but I do enough rule-based detail stuff submitting papers to zoning and building officials every week. So don't worry -- I'm still getting my daily dose of bureaucracy! Alephb (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I L O V E that description of working on Wiki! OMG! That is perfect! Absolutely perfectly true! But what ever else you feel and think about your memories of working here, it is completely true that in a very short time here, I was circling the drain and ready to give up, and you stepped in and purposefully saved me. You gave me encouraging words, you got me working on the "obscure little articles" and gave me an entirely different kind of experience working on Arbella with you. We accomplished something there without undue fault finding or point-of-view pushing. You made me believe that was possible -- that it was possible that Wiki could be a good experience. Of course--then you got mad and left... :-) But that's okay now.

Of course there is no better giant encyclopedia--it's a one of a kind! And generally you know, I think everything does work out eventually with Wiki's approach--people having to work together ups the anty and makes everyone produce a better product--but there is also always collateral damage because there is no real mediation. I can understand trying to get people to work out their issues themselves--that's a perfectly reasonable idea. Grown-ups should be able to do that. But let's face it, people get away with stuff here. I tried to reach out to someone who was circling the drain just like I was and do for them what you did for me--they had the same problem with the same person I did--and while they were grateful they declined staying. I was unable to help them as you helped me. So Wiki does produce a good product--mostly--in the end--but there are costs that Wiki doesn't even seem to see or acknowledge--or much care about I guess. My 'mileage' on putting up with this comes and goes.

I also write on Quora--which I like--and on Medium, but Wikipedia's standards for references and neutrality are higher than anyplace else I write. I admire that.

I am sorry about the grandparents. That has got to be hard for you. I have been there myself and while it is difficult, I am still thankful I was there for them through all they went through. It was an act of love that I cherish the memory of. I somehow feel confident it will work out that way for you as well. I am taking away the image of the red beard and steel toed boots and can't help smiling! It's a good thing to be with family more, a good thing to be in the real world more, a good thing to be into your job--and a good thing to know we are still friends. You take care of yourself and your loved ones. Keep that beard trimmed--don't let it get all raggedy looking now--and don't go correcting any of my contractions. I like them that way.  :-) God bless, Aleph. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone came along and fixed my contractions, was it you? If it was I feel guilty for coming back and talking to you and thereby sucking you back in. I didn't mean to! I won't talk to you anymore! I'm sorry! Don't come back! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry. It wasn't me! Alephb (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I found both 1658 English parts of Ussher's Annals at archive.org. For more info see User talk:Joe Kress#Ussher. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. We really are in the golden age for amateur historical research. Alephb (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell me who this is: 86.147.197.31 He obviously has some kind of political agenda and is trying to change things on the "modesty guard" page. thank you! --Jane955 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see the ANI thread [24], and particular my recently-added comments regarding this matter. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Jane, asking someone to reveal the personal identity of an editor is unacceptable on Wikipedia. I wouldn't tell you even if I knew. See WP:OUTING. Alephb (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)