User talk:Rktect/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] archive 1

[edit] COPYVIO

Please don't readd copyrighted material to wikipedia. Regarding Image:Milaria Scotia Regium 1595.jpg

You got permission to reproduce the image , I agree, but the permission given is not enough for Wikipedia's policies. See [1] for Jimbo Wales' ruling.

This is the second time you upload such image, please don't do it again. From the copyvio template:

Those who repeatedly post copyrighted material may be blocked from further editing.

-- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't vandalize tuser talk pages. Regarding [2] -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Indo-Europeans

I reverted your edits at Proto-Indo-Europeans since your edits were largely spurious (e.g. they could have lived at the Persian gulf, etc.). If you have access to additional theories about their origins, please cite sources.--Wiglaf 20:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The information you changed had been mostly written by an Indo-Europeanist scholar at Wikipedia, Dbachmann, and AFAIK, it accurately reflects the most common opinion on the Proto-indo-Europeans. If you have alternative theories, please, add them with notes about the source.--Wiglaf 13:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect/Evidence. Fred Bauder 22:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Format of evidence

On the evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect, I see that the requirement is for a very strict linear time format. I have been collecting evidence in a totally different format (User:Egil/Sandbox/rfar), and hope for undestanding that it will take very considerable time to transform this into the time linear format, and also to properly present my issues in the time linear format. The material in question is large, there are many thousand edits from a user account and also probably 4 different anon IPs. My main objection I am trying to show is that the vast majority of these thousands of edits are unencyclopedic and original research, and that this constitues a major problem to the credibility of Wikipedia, and makes it impossible to do useful work. And that there is a consensus among editors that this is the case. -- Egil 09:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we want to keep this as simple as possible. As Jack Web used to say "Just the facts Ma'm". Let Egil remove everything that is irrelevant, immaterial, speculative and false from his statement

and there will certainly be much less to respond to. Rktect 01:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A section has been set aside on the /Evidence page for your use. Please place what you wish in that section. Do not edit Egil's section. Fred Bauder 03:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

I've filed a request for mediation about Squaring the circle and an user has proposed himself as a mediator. You may want to go and check [3] to state if you accept or not. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

In the mediation I have asked that the two of you stay away from that particular article. Drini has been doing so, and I reverted your changes to that page. Please stay away from it before anymore tensions build up. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your uncooperation has led to be dropping the mediation and referring you to arbcom. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration closed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect has been closed. You are banned from editing articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology). You may be briefly blocked if you do. Please see the decision for the reasoning and findings of fact this decision is based on. Fred Bauder 15:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 48 hours for using your sockpuppet, User:Federal Street to violate the ArbCom decision on Cubit, Systems of measurement, Gabriel Mouton, Pace (measurement), and History of measurement. --Carnildo 06:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Western semitic calender page

(repost from article talk page) I tried to figure out the context for the article (attempted to stub sort), but it isn't entirely clear- beyond it being a form of calendar. A little better introduction the the article would help. Also the link a year and a day doesn't lend itself very well to the context it's linked from (at least as far as I could tell)- it would probably be better to move it to an external links section along with a description of what a reader should be looking for since it links to a middle of a rather long article (or book?). In any case, just thought I'd say why I marked the article with the context tag. Also, I did do a google search on the title with very little relevant results. It'd probably be good to cite a source or two. ~ Falls End (T, C) 18:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Also, just a formatting note- when you want to link to something inside wikipedia just use the double brace [[pagename]] to link rather then the external link format. This allows tools to work better and things like tracking which pages link to other pages to work. If you want to reformat the way the link looks (I saw you do that in a few of your links) just use the following format: [[pagename|display text]] (note the bar '|' between the actual page name and the text you want displayed in the link). You're always welcome to let me know if you have any formatting questions or anything. ~ Falls End (T, C) 02:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] URU URU salaam KI

Following up on a discussion on the ANE 2 discussion list, Yitzhak Sapir at Hebrew Bible and ANE History Lists Commentary blog notes the way the place name [Jerusalem] is written in the Akkadian of Amarna tablet EA 287.

He even has a picture from The Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool website. He correctly notes that the place name is written with the "City" determinative URU before urusalem. At least this is true in five of the seven instantiations of the place name in the Amarna tablets.
EA 287:25: URUú-ru-sa-lim (I believe this is the example illustrated in Yitzhak's post)
EA 287:46: URUú-ru-sa-limKI
EA 287:61: ú-ru-sa-limKI
EA 287:63: URUú-ru-sa-limKI
EA 289:14: URUú-ru-sa-limKI
EA 289:29: URUú-ru-sa-limKI
EA 290:15: ú-ru-sa-limKI

The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places.

That suggests that it was at one time the northern border of the dijadi which was moved north in the Time of Thutmosis I to the city of Kadesh in the mountains. (This was originally a Phoenician city (Gades - Cadiz, Carthage, Kodesh) which was a city of refuge on the border of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel before any of those existed as countries.

Like Kadesh Jerusalem may have had the same function as a refuge city and also as a place where people would feel safe to meet for purposes of trade. In the 18th Dynasty the border between retnu (the watershed of the Orantes) and the dijadi (the watershed of the Jordan) was at the common headwaters of the Orantes, Litani and Jordan whose mountain watersheds people still fight over today.

The Akkadian name should go first since thats the name of the place in its earliest history, even after it becomes part of an Egyptian province in the 18th and 19th Dynasty as referenced in the Amarna letters.Rktect 10:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You cite a blog post, which holds very little weight in supporting a statement. I'm not even sure the post backs up what you're saying. Ultimately, Akkadian is already addressed in the article, with a better source. Also, please remember to post comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the middle, and with second-level headers (==), not first-level headers (=). -- tariqabjotu 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The primary source is not the blog post, its ANE 2 discussion list, a monitored academic list server. If you aren't familiar with the server, the names, or the issue there is little left to say.Rktect 01:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you quoted appears to be an analysis from the poster on the blog. That's original research. This segment – The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places. – does not even make sense. "More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI..."? How does one come to that conclusion? -- tariqabjotu 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The archaeologists seem to think that Jerusalem was settled centuries earlier than 2000BCE. Anyways, I'm no expert, so if you provide text that cites a reliable secondary source (WP:RS) about the origins of the name, then we can insert it into the article. You can discuss this further if you wish on talk:Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Beit Or 21:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have violated WP:3RR on Deborah, I invite you to do a self-revert. Beit Or 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything, let alone 3 times. Actually I have just been editing and adding material. if you don't mind telling me, why don't you use the discussion page where I have been explaining what I'm doing and adding cites to discuss this. Rktect 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I trust you do agree there is a difference between an edit which adds material and a revert which deletes it. User Jayjg has been stalking and reverting edits of everything I have added in the last week. I have not reverted in reciprocation but rather asked why on the discussion portion of the pages and on his user page. So far he has not been very responsive. I note from other comments that he does this to others rather often. In the case of the page on Deborah I think the comparison of historical references to the biblical account adds some depth to the page. If you disagree why not explain rather than repeatedly attempt revert me in the middle of an edit? Rktect 21:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

How many times must this be said? You can't invent your own theories about things; instead you have to report what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you not consider cites from Bartelby's on semitic roots reliable? How about self refrencing Biblical cites? Cites on the ANE from ANET?...You replace cites from Gardiner book and page with Budge by revert? ...Where are your cites in rebuttal? With all due respect you come across as not knowing the first thing about the topics you are reverting. You don't seem to recognize that semitic Akkadian is a precursor to semitic Hebrew by several millenia, You are unfamiliar with the languages of the ANE and their literature, You apparently are unaware that Palestinians have a history in Canaan that goes back to the Peleset, you don't know the history, you don't know the archaeology or the sites, the laws, the campaigns, the kings or the religions. When sites from reputable sources are provided you don't recognize them because you haven't read them. Rktect 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You must review review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. You have invented your theories, or put them together from a bunch of sources in a novel way. You have a habit of doing this. If you don't stop, I'm going to propose re-opening your case to expand it to these topics as well. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Your stalking, groundlessly reverting well sourced pages without comment and threatening don't speak well of you as an administrator. From now on, before you revert a page, try commenting on what you don't like about the source and otherwise following Wikipedia protocol. Rktect 10:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure you should just take J's advice, he is pretty much correct. Until(1 == 2) 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I blocked Rktekt for 48 hours to give everyone a much needed break. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

As frustrating as it sometimes can be, the policy on no original research specifically prohibits such inferable information. The point is highlighted especially in controversial subject matter like biblical studies, where there are many opinions involved. OR is one of the most important policies, and unfortunately it is also among the hardest to understand. I suggest you review it carefully, and if you have any questions, feel free to approach myself or the helpdesk. TewfikTalk 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is sometimes okay to cite a verse, however you can't make any inferences. I guarantee your Wikipedia experience will run far smoother if you try to thoroughly understand that policy. TewfikTalk 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You reverted this which is simply Exodus 2:2 and 1:10

Also according to the book of Exodus, Moses was born in a time of dynastic change in Egypt when the Sons of Israel had become numerous enough to raise concerns lest in a time of war they might take arms against Egypt

and this which is Exodus 2:15

According to the book of Exodus after this incident Moses made his way to Midian which lies directly across the Red Sea from Thebes which was Egypts capital at the time.

and this which is just a summary of Exodus 4-7

According to the book of Exodus, as a shepherd, Moses spends most of his life tending his Jethro's flocks while his brother Aaron is educated as a scribe and becomes a priest in Egypt with standing to speak in the royal court at Thebes.

All of this was just added reference from the Bible story which isn't in the story as it stands Rktect 19:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours to give everyone a rest from your behaviour. Original research, argumentation, spurious complaints about those who oppose you, and frankly we don't need any of it. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

You have to stop inventing theories loosely based on a whole bunch of different sources; instead, you must cite someone who exactly states that theory. In your case, I recommend quoting what people say directly. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position would clear up exactly what the issue is here. Until(1 == 2) 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've pointed him to that before. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

When ignorance is no longer a viable explaination of a persons behavior, it becomes more and more likely that the person is intentionally ignoring policy. Until(1 == 2) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I won't jump to that conclusion but it does seem odd to remove references and then claim OR or SYN

I added a reference from Gardiner Egyptian Grammar, to the Ten Commandments page re: the meaning of the name Moses in Egyptian. I then went down to the bottom of the page to place the ISBN's went back up to the top and found the reference gone. For what its worth there was no Hebrew language in existence when the events of Exodus took place so what sense does it make to cite a Jewish Encyclopedia as to the meaning of the name in Hebrew? Lets exercise a little common sense and it will be a better encyclopedia. The following are kind of throwaway references just to show its common knowledge. The source I cited was Gardiners Egyptian Gramar.

ahmose thutmose Rameses

Calender mesra

Mesori also known as Mesra is the twelfth month of the Coptic calendar. It lies between August 7 and September 5 of the Gregorian calendar. The month of Mesori is also the fourth month of the Season of 'Shemu' (Harvest) in Ancient Egypt, where the Egyptians harvest their crops throughout the land of Egypt. The name of the month of Mesori comes from Mes-o-ri, an Ancient Egyptian word that mean Birth of Sun.

I expect you realize that archaeology, history and linguistics are useful tools to understanding the events of the past so why the insistence on pretending they don't exist?Rktect 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do any of the sources mention the name "Moses"? Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

2 [10] When the child grew: probably when he was weaned or a little later. Moses: in Hebrew, Mosheh; the Hebrew word for "draw out" is mashah. This explanation of the name is not intended as a scientific etymology but as a play on words. The name is probably derived from an Egyptian word for "has been born," referring the birth to a god thought to be its sponsor.

In Egyptian, "Moses" means "Son of," as in the pharaohs Rameses, "Son of the god Ra," and Thutmose, "Son of the god Thoth." Thus Moses is simply "Son of - -- and a blank." "Son of - who knows?" Appropriate enough for this boy who is reborn from the Nile, who has two or three mothers and perhaps three fathers (his biological father Amram, his protector Pharaoh, and his father-in-law Yitro, the only one who really guides and fathers him), who lives between two worlds, and whose Egyptian rescuer is said to tweak his name in mistaken Hebrew: She who drew him forth from the water says "Moses" means "the one who is drawn forth," but it actually means "the one who will draw forth" -- as he does draw forth the people from slavery.

Most Afroasiatic and Semitic words are written as roots without vowels. English readers tend to add them and this has become convention, but in the original form Moses (Mss) is mes ses (mss) written as msi because three consonants taken together is the plural form. see Gardiner p 570

The name Moses (mes ses) is particularly common in the 18th Dynasty founded by Ahmosis or iah mes. Its present in Thutmoses, which anglicized is Thomas.

The essential point that all the sources touch on is the midwiferey of drawing something forth. In this case we have an alegory between the birth of a man in difficult times and the birth of a new religion. In a way Moses is the midwife, the person responsible for guarding its birth. Exodus isn't about the Sons of Israel escaping slavery, its about their new religion being drawn forth or born anew out of EgyptRktect 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't use any of those sources in your edits, and none of them back up the claims you actually made. This is a persistent problem. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This is like people arguing about the length of their dick. Generally its only necessary to pull out enough to winRktect 13:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian

Hi. You are welcome. It is easy for me to correct the spelling errors when using the Firefox browser.

From looking at your edits, the discussions, and the article... I suggest you ask for help and other opinions at

It usually helps to get some additional WP:NPOV eyes looking at a situation. --Timeshifter 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I used word to spell check my last edit Dating the Exodus Thanks again Rktect 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More original research with bias

Your recent edits to Aram-Naharaim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Aram (Biblical region) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Baal-zephon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Jerusalem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) show clear original research with certain bias behind them. Further edits of this kind will lead to your account being blocked once again. If you wish to raise issues with individual articles, please do so on that article's talk page, and please do so in a manner that leads to discussion with other editors rather than by making sweeping statements. — Gareth Hughes 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What bias is there in putting up some well known references and mentioning the pages where they refer to Jerusalem in an article on Jerusalem? What original research is involved in using bible references and a map to identify a location? In the article on Baal Zephon it is claimed that the place of a crossing of the Red Sea can be identified by examining the Hebrew meaning of the words, and suggested it might be wiser to do that in Egyptian. The phrase Red Sea is clearly a reference to the Greek Erythrian Sea and not the Hebrew Yam suph. Zepyheros is likewise Greek , Baal is semitic and a reference to the power of the wind, but Zepyhros is the west wind rather than the north and gentle rather than a blow hard wind.

respectfully, I just left a map on your page that identifies where Aram is. The articles you restored say their authors don't know where it is but speculate its in Mesopotamia on the basis of cites from Josephus who was himself speculating.
If you consider cites of Bible verses refering to its cities as located south of Damascus and otherwise defining its territory along with maps original research thats your problem, not mine. You should find there is adequate material on the talk pages to explain why its not.
Reverting the page removes the references and leaves the speculation.
If you wish to raise issues with individual articles, please do so on that article's talk page, and please do so in a manner that leads to discussion with other editors rather than by making sweeping statements and arbitrary revertsRktect 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The map link does not work. Your statements tend to misinterpret the sources you use, when you use them. It is clear from your history that a number of other editors have felt the same way. You are requested to work with the community. There is no other option. — Gareth Hughes 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are still having problems with the map link try cutting and pasting it into your browser. It works fine for me as is just clicking it. Alteratively go to the library and get the book with the map I cited. Until you have checked the sources yourself and found a reason to consider them in error your should WP:AGF and refrain from removing them by reverting the pages.

My statements generally do not misinterpret the sources I use, my comments are the sources I use. If you want to tell me where you think my sources got it wrong I will be happy to discuse that with you.Rktect 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

I have filed a request for comment regarding your conduct on articles. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rktect and comment accordingly, if you prefer. -- tariqabjotu 15:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your response (not what you put on the RfC talk page) should go in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rktect#Response. -- tariqabjotu 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aram_%28Biblical_region%29&diff=prev&oldid=143553055 Rktect 01:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Its hard to respond succinctly so I put a lot of the diffs on the discussion page.
I don't think reverting before reading works.
The same for delete but don't contribute or discuss
The everything is original research, delete all the edits, references and sources likewise.
I haven't quite figured it out where you are going with this yet
People naturally feel very protective of their POV on the Bible, I'm OK with that.
The idea seems to be that it was written in Hebrew.
That would be ok except a lot of stuff in the Bible was written about half a millenia before Hebrew became a language, let alone a written language
That Akkadian and Egyptian speakers contributed a few things here and there seems to smack of Original Research so discussion of them should be kept to a minimum,

is that the gist of it? Rktect

[edit] Proportion and some other things

Hi there. I was going to say something to you about the amount of references (over thirty) which you included on the Proportion (architecture) article. A few things that probably need specific citations were probably also lacking them. And you might want to look at the guide for inserting footnotes. I'm not very good with them myself. But also just glancing at your talk page, I notice that you have been banned from weights and measures so you might want to ask someone if this is even appropriate to be editing those articles. I see that you’ve created a few subpages about measures and I think you could get into some trouble for it. I just wanted to give you a bit of friendly advice that you should probably be careful not to violate the Arbcom decision that you were involved in. I'm sure that you don't want to get in trouble for that and I can see that there is a lot of other stuff going on. Good luck with everything. --JGGardiner 01:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)