User talk:86.135.122.192

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Shekhinah, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Wikiscient 16:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
Thank you for your further attention to the Shekhinah article!
I have restored some of the text you edited-out because, although it is somewhat in conflict with Wikipedia's "avoid weasel-words" policy, it seems like an interesting and plausible possibility to me. More importantly, though, it has already been [citation needed]-tagged, and so the considerate thing to do is to wait a while more for the relevant reference to be provided...
Again, though: thank you very much for your conscientious concern for the quality of this article, and I do very much hope you will consider contributing on a regular basis!
Wikiscient 18:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hello! I've noticed that you have edited Wikipedia without logging in to an account. It's great that you've been contributing; however, I urge you to create an account. Here is a list of the benefits of having an account:

There are no cons to signing up for an account. In fact, you can find even more pros at the "why create an account" page! Signing up is completely free and you don't need to enter any personal information! Plus you can have a user page, which you can use to show your interests, style, or nearly whatever! So, unless you can think of a con, please sign up for an account right now! Wikiscient 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Shekhinah/Shakti

I understand where you're coming from in saying we should wait to see if it can be sourced, and I also realise the sentence in question only says "some say this" not "this is true", but I don't believe even mentioning such fringe/crackpot speculation in an anotherwise serious article should really be encouraged even with sourcing. Now, I couldn't find an exactly opposing source that says "Shekhinah is not related to Shakti", but a look at both the pages Shekhinah and Shakti gives plausible native etymologies for both words; there is no real question of a Semitic origin for the word Shakti, or for that matter an Indo-Aryan origin for the word Shekhinah. I agree with you that the possibility of such long range religious correspondences are intriguing, but upon a close examination most are revealed as new age quackery that have no place in a serious encyclopedia. --86.135.122.192 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Points taken, and I have re-deleted the comment in question -- though I'm still not sure it's quite so completely far-fetched as all that! ;)
 !   Wikiscient 13:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)