See Dan Bahat, feel free to join in.. Zero^talk 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the category was "Archaeological museums run by Israel" or "Archaeological museums featuring Israeli history", you might have a point. But it isn't, so you don't. "In Israel" has a specific meaning that is only true here according to a minority political viewpoint. We'd like to stay away from political viewpoints altogether, but when that isn't possible we go with the mainstream. Zero^talk 06:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, you are a good editor so I hope you continue. Zero^talk 06:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Z. Still, I've been working for travel guide publishers for so many years and know to appreciate complete info. Check Buq'ata, Mas'ada etc. for a very practicable compromise for Golan issues. There are no categories "Archaeological museums run by Israel" or "Archaeological museums featuring Israeli history" and it makes no sense to create them. Btw, this museum has a large focus on prehistory, another one on Byzantine period synagogues plus a bit on Roman-period Gamla, and I think nothing more recent than that, so nothing on Israel as such. Israel is "de facto" where, once you're on the ground, everything around you is Israeli - laws, currency, access (visa, entry points), language, people (yes, Jews aside, all Golan Druze have Israeli permanent residency and ID cards and some even adopted IL citizenship, all speak at least some Hebrew, use the Israeli health system, job market etc., etc.), so what the international law says is utterly irrelevant on the ground. Not what the Druze feel and think, but that's a different topic altogether and is more differentiated than one might think. There are (a few) tourists who refuse to visit the Golan along with all occupied territories, and that's why indicating the int'l legal status is for sure of some significance, but for smb. who's planning his trip or researching the topic and using the categories, the 2/3 of the Golan now controlled by Israel are in Israel for all intents and purposes. Belfast is in the UK, contested or not, I hate the fact that Putin got Crimea, but I won't try to visit it via Kiev, similarly with Abkhasia and Georgia, or the territories Romania lost to the Soviets through the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and never got back from the Ukraine even if the treaty has been declared nil and void, etc, etc, etc. I see WP as a source of practical info, not a manual of political correctness. The UN actually very much acknowledges de facto realities, while fighting for correct resolution of conflicts. I wouldn't be surprised or object if a Syrian Golan refugee would make it his goal to "fix" this issue, but you don't strike me as being Ahmad az-Zero Saif ad-Din al-Golani. Ma'assalama habibi and have a great day, Arminden (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

Hi, because I edit in the Israel-Palestine area of Wikipedia, I'm only allowed to use my administrator powers there in the most no-brain cases. Such as squashing vandals, which is not a description fitting this case. Blocking the recent IPs won't make a difference either, as whoever it is will just return with different IPs. The only way to slow down disruption is semi-protection, which again I am not allowed to impose myself. You should make a case for semi-protection at WP:RFP. Zero^talk 14:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll try!Arminden (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

Hi there. I've been monitoring (not stalking!) your edits to the Middle East on and off since your constructive edits on the Acre article. You're clearly knowledgable in Middle East geography and affairs and I was prepared to swoop in and back you up if you made any constructive edits to articles that upset the pushy nationalist-political types that dominate parts of that topic area.

I'll briefly explain why I have effectively reverted your changes on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article. It's important that the prose of the article flow well, and the statements in brackets disrupted that flow. There is also no need to use prose to negate any dubious statement or apologise for anything. If a statement is wrong or irrelevant, feel free to be WP:BOLD and just remove it, as I have done! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi back, ANA. I'm really happy that you found some gain in following my WP editing. It sometimes seems to me that editors are the only ones who read what other editors contribute :) and it's usually with scorn, while the common users couldn't care less - so every good encounter is encouraging. For your backing I really do feel grateful and I thank you very much for your kind words about my efforts, knowledgeable or otherwise as thy might be.

I see you did anything but undo my edit, you actually removed the older bit I felt urged to set right. Thanks! I fear though that smb. might put it back in. If that happens, I'll happily leave it up to you to find a better-flowing sentence as a means of countering the wrong impression left on the cursory reader by that non-statement. Cheeres, Arminden (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

Hello @Arminden How are you today i loved your thing on god very entertaining because it says:

Hello i am @Arminden.

I couldn't stop laughing i think someone edited it when you said not too but it is a free world.

Goodbye. 83.100.161.198 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you change the spelling of a word from "Ava" to "Ave" on Wikipedia and in the comment section, instead of writing "correct spelling," you write "that's Ava Gardner you meant; this on the other hand, is Latin or something like that, pre-Jahiliya in any case and infidels stuff)" it demonstrates rude and bigoted behavior. Not that you didn't already know that..VanEman (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, it worked better than I could have hoped for! You really did guess it's meant for you! I'm honoured. You did indeed go through all of my dozens of edits of yesterday till you found my "message in a bottle". You're a thorough man, Van. Put it to good use.Arminden (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

PS: Yes, I am hostile to people with more stubbornness than knowledge. No, bigoted I'm not, I'm very open to well-founded opinions different from mine. I hold knowledge to be important, comprehension even more so, and consider true intellectuals to have a heavier word to say than others. I don't count myself to be a scholar or an intellectual other than in attitude and striving. Political correctness is a substitute for civility and politeness which disregards the authority conferred by knowledge. Big words, simple truths. [Arminden]

I can't believe I never noticed it said Jerusalem instead Holy Land. Nicely done. I can't believe I missed that. MontChevalier (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.82.26 (talk) Reply[reply]

Thank you for the flowers, i.e. merci mon chevalier! :) Don't get too wound up, neither did Guy notice the trap at Hattin, and that was more serious. Deus lo vult.Arminden (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

If you mean HaZor'im, it was established by olim from Germany and the Netherlands from the Union of Religious Pioneers (ברית חלוצים דתיים), Ezra and the Mizrahi Youth. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Why don't you write so? :) I'll put it in, but quoting your talk page might not be enough for everybody.
PS: Hazorim - HaZor'im: the Yekke movement alive & kicking? "Bei uns sagt man richtig..." Can afford joking about it, just got an unneeded 100-point test certificate for German from Berlitz; some need it black on white. About the apostrophes etc.: I use them when I must, otherwise I go with Lawrence (of Arabia) who made fun of transliteration pundits--it's all a convention, some like some of it, some none of it, some swear by it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Makedonija. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Macedonia (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

don't know who you are, don't know what you're talking about, and seemingly you don't either. ignored. ps: i'm pretty much out of this wp BS altogether, so don't bother anymore with threatening, blocking, cursing in polit. correct ways, etc. [Arminden]

http://www.jta.org/1976/03/11/archive/davidovich-suffers-heart-attack

so here's an article with a Jewish Russian with the same name as Boris's father you're telling me he's not Jewish too ?

Whats your obsession with going around covering up Jewish people's names ? You some sort of Zionist history revisionist ?

Go to vodka detox, them read again, then talk. [Arminden]

Hello Arminden,

A while ago you made an expansion to the article Barid (caliphate). In regards to this statement:

"The etymology of the Arabic word "barid" is considered by P. K. Hitti in his History of the Arabs to be "unclear". He takes issue with two of the proposed origins, writing that "Babylonian buridu is just as unsatisfactory as Latin veredus.""

This had no direct citation, and when I went to go and find the quote I was unable to do so within Hitti's work. Instead, Hitti's explanation of the etymology of the word barid reads as follows (p. 322, n. 5): "Ar barid is probably a Semitic word, not related to Latin veredus, Pers birdan, a swift horse, Ar birdhawn, horse of burden." I did however find the quote, not in Hitti's book, but in a review of the book written by Richard N. Frye (here, page 585), in which he makes the quoted statement as an addendum to Hitti's p. 322 footnote. Would it therefore be more appropriate to change the citation from Hitti to Frye? Thanks, Ro4444 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ro4444, hi. On the contrary, I must thank you. Please do go ahead and correct my mistake. I remember that I tried to figure out the etymology, was unsatisfied with the WP article as it was, and drowned in all kind of books and papers, one older than the other, which I found online. Please excuse me for leaving it up to you to fix the issue. Keep up the good work, Arminden (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

Great, glad to get that solved. I made the change and added a citation, so we should be good there. As for the etymology, most of the recent sources I used believed in either the Latin or the Persian origin; the Babylonian/Semitic theory doesn't seem to have been popular since the early 20th century (though my view may be colored by using predominantly English-language texts only). Even still, it was a good expansion for the article, for elaborating on the development of modern theories for the origin of the word. Thanks again for your help on this. Ro4444 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Arminden. I noticed that you are very sure of yourself and the truth of your edits. Nevertheless, there are certain community established conventions and editing rules on Wikipedia, of which you might not always be aware. I would urge you to take any potentially controversial edit to the talkpage for discussion and consensus establishing prior to making such edits.

Relevant policies and guidelines: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TRUTH, WP:BRD and many others regarding specific issues. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Debresser:. Thanks for your message. Honestly, WP is more of a "bad habit" of mine, I have no intention of spending any more time on doing additional studies of WP lingo and insider procedures beyond what accords with the real world, major encyclopedias and lexicons (Britannica, Larousse, Duden, etc.), common sense, and WP's usefulness for the common user.

The habit of using transliterated Hebrew terms as part of articles written in English is specific to religious Jewish circles. Not outside them. Check in the real world, google for terms, whatever. I will not fight anyone who has the time and hobby to deny reality on WP, of which there are many and who enjoy slugging it out on "talk pages" full of endless monologues. This is my own monologue :-) and all I have to say. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Joseph Zaritsky at kandinof yard,.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heya, so just letting you know, there are actually two similar publications run by BAS, one is Biblical Archaeology Review, which is their lovely print publication, and the other is their online Bible History Daily publication which I occasionally write for—although I was on the cover of BAR two years back. Easy mistake to make when citing, of course. I made the correction in the mikvah article footnote. Thank you though, it sure is nice to see my name cited on Wikipedia! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5776 21:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir William - or shall I say Sir Henry? -, I'm most honoured. I do get the daily newsletter,but didn't quite realise that it's fully independent of the print publication. Nice place to meet. Only in the field could be nicer. Keep up the good work! Happy holidays, Arminden (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha, just Henry. I'm not a knight nor am I eligible for such fancy things. The name is just very popular as you can imagine—though some fellow did accuse me of masquerading as him! I think a lot of the same people write for the print publication as the online one, but the online also has guest writers such as moi. Like I said, easy mistake especially because a lot more people think of BAR than BAS. And thanks! My days in the field might be done, but if they aren't, hopefully meet you there one day as well! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5776 22:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it makes sense to include a list of all desert castles as a "see also" in each desert castle article:

• A "see also" to desert castle gets to the full list.
• The articles generally already include a link to desert castle, and the manual of style says "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Macrakis:. I am sure you are right, and I think with time most of these "See also" links will be deleted. But please, not yet though. The term "desert castles" has been wrongly limited to the Jordanian ones. My point is to inform people about the wider CONTEXT. The Middle East is a horribly tribal place, helping people see the wider picture, in whatever area, is a gain. Thank you and happy holidays! Arminden (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC) @Macrakis: PS: I think NONE of the pages relating to non-Jordanian desert castles did link to the term, and I'm not sure even the Jord. ones all did. Or used the term "qasr" as universally accepted terminology. The topic got far too little exposure, and it shows in the WP articles. Besides, it was me, today, who added the examples from Syria, Israel and Palestine to the list on the Desert castles page, so I went on to connect a bit farther, as part of the same "widening of the horizons". The term is extremely vague as it is, giving it at least geographically a clearer shape can only help.Arminden (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Zero0000: Would you consider starting a page on spring-flow tunnels? I'm still not capable of that feat.
Zvi Y. D. Ron is/was THE specialist, he published apparently mainly between 1967-1992, but TAU still has him on its website [1]. There is even a mention of a Zvi Ron publishing on the topic in 2013 [2].
There is a lot on this at [3].
It's a technology DIFFERENT from the better known qanat (see below), it has apparently first been developed in the time of Herod the Great (didn't see enough proof to fully accept that), the Judean Mountains have the most examples. At Abu Ghosh and Battir Roman inscriptions were found at apparently pre-existing spring-flow tunnels, with the names of the 10th Legion Fretensis and 5th Macedonian Legion, the first from the time of the first revolt, the second connected with the Bar Kochba revolt. So the systems were there in the 60s CE/130s CE. I am not sure if I understood it correctly, that there is no proper aquiclude in the Judean Mountains, just some type of aquitard (marl or similar), which lets some of the water through, in any case, for catching more water, the idea was of digging tunnels until they reached - where? the wettest spot?-, building there a collection pool which gathered the entire flow from the exposed ceiling, and taking the water out via channels in the tunnel floor, to be then distributed to terraces. But this is what I gathered from less than academical sources. Ron has a publication which might contain his main results, Zvi Y. D. Ron, Agricultural terraces in the Judean Mountains, appeared in: Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966) 33-49, 111-122, but I didn't find it online. There is only one useful quote I could find:

By terracing the hills, plots of agricultural land became available that did not take away from the land needed to harvest grains in the valleys. Several archaeologists maintain that terracing was the major technological innovation of the Iron Age.290 [Footnote 290: See, for example, Zvi Ron, “Agricultural Terraces in the Judean Mountains,” IEJ 16 (1966): 33–49, 111–22. Joseph A. Callaway, “A Visit with Ahilud. A Revealing Look at Village Life When Israel First Settled the Promised Land,” BAR 9 (1983): 42–53. Lawrence E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35.]

Qanat vs. spring-flow tunnel: Although there are similarities in the construction techniques (both are excavated tunnels designed to extract water by gravity flow), there are crucial differences between the two. Firstly, the origin of the qanat was a well that was turned into an artificial spring. In contrast, the origin of the spring flow tunnel was the development of a ‘real’ spring to renew or increase flow, following an episode of the water table receding. Secondly shafts, which are essential to qanats, are not essential to spring flow tunnels.
That's about it. Interested? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: Hi Zero. I hope I'm not pinging you too often? Please tell me if I am. Now I stumbled upon this typical potayto-potahto double, Yavne and Yibna. I worked on the history part so as to help somebody access the info quickly and efficiently: all Muslim periods under Yibna, the rest under Yavne, with "main" tags and repetitions on both pages if interest overlaps. I think it's in every WP reader's interest to keep things simple & logical, but by now I know what will follow. Problem is that I only noticed afterwards that there's been a merger attempt, closed by a very IT-minded arbiter with a negative decision. Negative is OK, but his logic I cannot fully follow. I will NOT go into stuff like this, but I see you have, so - isn't there some logical guideline saying, for instance, that a defunct village gets its own history, while the still existing town that took its place gets all the rest? Especially parts which it claims a connection to? Or any other rational principle. Ideally such which are, look & smell neutral. My main issue is: you got bits of info here, bits there, some overlapped, some were in the wrong place (more on Yibna aspects at Yavne & viceversa). Endless mess. Doesn't serve anyone. Except that people don't act according to ration, robots do, I know. Suggestions? Thanks & cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the overlap between the two articles looks pretty silly. There are still problems with the content, especially with the 1948-ish history. To summarise, Arab Yibna was on the site of ancient Yavne but was depopulated in 1948. As for modern Yavne, it was not founded on the same site and only in recent decades has it expanded enough that the ancient site is on its outskirts. Because of this I can understand the point of view that the ancient history belongs with Yibna and not with Yavne. Now, one important piece of history is missing: the founding of modern Yavne. It was not a case of resettling Yibna! I have a 1956 Israel map that shows Yibna as "abandoned" and יבנה (Yavne) as a new establishment about 1km north. Similarly, there is no "Yavne" in the complete list of recognised settlements which appeared in the 1952 Israeli Yearbook. I didn't find out what the full story is; do you have anything? Zero^talk 08:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: Hi. You're giving me too much credit, I don't have much of anything in terms of non-archaeological data. But I know a bit about history and settlement, Zionist or otherwise. The tell has not been even excavated although it is located very conveniently because it has a lot of Ottoman village remains and Crusader walls at the top, and getting to what the Israeli archaeologists are most interested in, post-70 Yavne and maybe Israelite & Philistine Yavne, would mean destroying that first (see quoted book by Raz Kletter [4]). The mukhtar's house looked very much inhabited some 10 years ago, and the mausoleum of Abu Huraira is surrounded by city fabric. 1 km is nothing, sometimes the same population moves by even more after a major event. The name was preserved, and the location of a settlement is decided and defined by its convenient position on major trade roads, other site-specific sources of livelihood, source of water, important landmarks (mausoleum!), and in the past yes, defensive features (hill, tell) - so the latter one is the only unchecked box, but it is quite anachronistic. Nobody argued with topography against the merger. Plus self-definition is quite important, and they did call it Yavne. Kvutzat Yavne and Gan Yavne took those names rather than simply Yavne because they knew they're not *at* Yavne. Building next to, and not on top of former Arab villages, occurred in other places too. As a possible indicator to how "availavble" the tell and its surroundings was in 1948: the mosque/Crusader church was blown up only in 1950 (see Kletter), maybe together with other houses, maybe not - Kletter doesn't specify and Yeivin who protested with the IDF was always just interested in archaeology, not in modern residential buildings.
Another argument: if continuity comes up, which is ridiculous but likely to happen, the favissa was Philistine, Israelites and post-Exilic Jews didn't hold the coast for long periods. Byzantine Iamnia was much larger, they had a "large Samaritan population" (Negev & Gibson), so people came when times were good and left when they turned bad. There is no population continuity here any more than in any eastern Mediterranean town. An adversary of the merger made what I consider to be the best (if not fully accurate) point in the discussion: there was an Arab Yibna from C7 till 1948, and a Jewish Israeli town after that. Right. Except, who were the inhabitants in the first century or two after the Muslim conquest? I didn't find data on that, normally people stayed put for a while and either left later on, or converted, with or w/o new Arab settlers moving in right away - some Arabs came with Umar, some with Saladin, some with Baibars etc. Btw, Abu Huraira is buried in Medina, I would guess the mausoleum is probably Mamluk rather than 12th c. as the article claims, and the Mamluks had this policy of "inventing" holy tombs along the postal roads which were their only interest in Palestine (link betw. Cairo and Damascus), building makams there, and maybe attracting some settlers along with the pilgrims (see Sidna Ali, Nabi Musa). Also ironic: Abu Huraira was a Yemenite, so not much of a Palestinian/Philistine.
I see zero reason why Philistine, Israelite, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Yavne/Iamnia should be one topic, Yibna another, and Israeli Yavne a third, or some other combination leaving us with the HISTORY being split on two pages. There was no perfect continuity between any of those periods, and nobody normally asks for that. We can have 3 pages - History on one, with all periods, Yibna and Yavne each separate with their own period plus a "main" tag to the rest -, or 2 pages, giving primary focus to one of the two places who still do have "advocates" (unlike the long-gone ones), which is a matter of decision from above :-)
Going to eat, cheers Arminden (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)ArmidenArminden (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC) PS: Somebody made a farfetched comparison to Constantinople vs. Istanbul. By far closer to the topic: City of David and Jerusalem. Nobody would argue that the C.o.D. belongs on the Silwan page rather than the Jerusalem one, although the CoD lay outside the city confines for endless centuries (70 - ?4th c.?, 1033-19th/20th c.). Why? Because the city moved, but kept some of its identity BEYOND its physical existence. This very much also applies to Yavne. (It's also true that Silwan did not extend onto the CoD ridge until the 19th c. No comparison is perfect.)Arminden (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the latest discussion on Talk:Chalcolithic might benefit from your attention. Zero^talk 08:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000:: Zero, hi. Thank you for inviting me to the discussion. I will need to take a 2-week break from WP and do some paid work, which is very good news. From what I have studied, the Middle Eastern Chalcolithic is considered by some heavy-weights as a period in its own right (i.e. Avraham Negev & Shimon Gibson, Gabriel Barkay). See the bronze hoard from the Cave of the Treasure in Wadi/Nahal Mishmar, possibly originating in the Chalcolithic temple from Ein Gedi. They did use copper, bronze was rare and primitive, alloyed with arsenic (possibly based on naturally occurring mixed ore, if I remember right), which meant: you didn't live to see your grandchildren grow as a Chalcolithic-era bronze metallurgist. There were areas where the transition from Neolithic to Ch. and from Ch. to Early Bronze happened gradually, but in general it was a sudden apparition, and then disappearance, of a very specific population and its culture. Sorry, but I need to go. Till next time, Arminden (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000:: Hi Zero. Did some restructuring, nothing much in terms of content, but now I hope it starts making more sense once the reader understands the different approaches from region to region. ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mormon University is on the Mount of Olives !!!. 5.29.119.219 (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@5.29.119.219: Thanks, but that's a statement, not a geographical definition or an argument :-)

Does anyone KNOW if the boundary Olivet-Scopus is defined as "along the Tzurim Valley" or not? Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TZURIM VALLEY is the border between Mount Scopus and Mount of Olives. 5.29.119.219 (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@5.29.119.219: OK, I understand it's most likely true (and logical), and that you know this, but for WP it's useful to have a quotable source. There are two separating landmarks there, the Tzurim V. and the At-Tur road slightly S of it; unless one can quote some reliable source, it's hearsay. Frustrating, I agree. PS: having a WP identity helps with gaining credibility. Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the revert in Ghassulian, both the text and the map say it is in modern Jordan. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marcocapelle:: I put the map there! But read the name of the page: GHASSULIAN (culture, phase), and NOT Teleilat Ghassul! Then go on and read the lead: it says it's a culture stretching over western parts of Jordan, and southern Israel & Pal. Please go beyond the "first impression" when editing, you need to really know the topic first. Btw, T. Ghassul was excavated by Franciscan archaeologists when there was no Jordan, just a Trans-Jordan and a Palestine under the same British mandate regime, and the findings were brought to Jerusalem, where they still are on display. So yes, things are seldom linear. ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two different trees relevant here, the history tree (for the "ancient" culture) and the archaeology tree (for the "modern" archaeological site). The latter tree is subcategorized by modern country. In this case the categories should presumably become Category:Ancient Levant and Category:Archaeological sites in Jordan. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good to me! As long as we keep them apart, I am happy for the added info. Thanks! ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding this edit summary,[5] I am not German, even though I know the language. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Debresser: Dovid, I'm aware of that. I had hoped you'd get the point. Never mind. I have done some good work on that lead, eliminated a big logical mistake and made it much clearer. You came and removed some supporting elements. Whatever. It is not an easy topic, with a cloud of misconceptions flying around it, and for anyone who didn't study Judaism it's hard to understand. I haven't studied Judaism, but did learn about the 3 main monotheistic religions, what's essential in their understanding, some comparison, and how to put it across in a simple manner to others. Using layout (separate symmetrical paragraphs for opposed terms), bold letters, etc. helps clarify things, period. Contracting too much and eliminating such helpful elements is counterproductive and, after the effort I've put into explaining the logic of using them I find it, honestly, silly. The irony is that for the public at large "Talmud" is a synonym for "splitting hairs". If there is a topic where one should insist on a clear, didactic explanation, then this is IT. But I don't have the energy or intention to fight editors who doggedly refuse to see the light. (Arrogant? OK, but not the point.) Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you did good work there. There is some instruction in WP:MOS not to use bold unnecessarily, and this was such a case IMHO. I am fine with not seeing the light, and with you not having the energy or intention to fight about it. That makes life so much easier and more pleasant. :) Debresser (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know the temptation of falling back on regulations and set rules & habits. And I know the risk of stopping to think and relying strictly on those. If WP serves any purpose, it's of offering the user/reader easy access to good information. That is the raison d'etre or "fundamental law" of WP. Period. All the WP rules are made to serve that purpose. When rules and logic come into conflict with each other, it's like a law being contested in front of the constitutional court. There, as here, the question asked is: does it serve the purpose, as stated by the "fundamental law"? The spirit of the law takes precedence over the letter of the law. So, when something helps the user/reader without harming the page, it's good and it should stay. Robotically removing good info based on some WP regulation, which is anyhow subject to constant improvement, is not constructive, meaning: harms the value of WP to the reader. Please consider this. Thank you. ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Click on the image, follow the "more information" link to Commons, and there you will see the information provided by the uploader. In this case, the book the map is from. Zero^talk 02:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: Hi, and thanks. I have, of course, but I am aware of no such book ("Palestine", 1889) by Conder. If you have it, or inf. about it, would you please upload it onto Conder's page? Thanks! ArmindenArminden (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See here. It is one of many books derived from Conder's more extensive scientific books. Zero^talk 03:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: Thank you! ArmindenArminden (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not insult people in your edit summaries WP:Portal isn't some obscure guideline. It is THE guideline that covers portals. It's also found in other MOS pages, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. I also gave other template that are usually used in sections. Bgwhite (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're following a pattern. I am offering smth. useful to the user, the only guideline worth following, and you come and take it out quoting formal WP rules. I'm not even going into how you happen to edit topics which are of direct importance to my work, but don't seem to interest you in any way until I touch them. I can pretend to be a (ro)bot and write like one, or I can speak up my mind, w/o calling names, but being frank. If this insults you, well, sometimes there are ways to insult logic and common sense, and that might be slightly more offensive. I won't take it any further. As you probably noticed, I attempted to deter a bot (Yobot) from making that same unfortunate revert once again, and it seemed as if it had worked; but I really didn't try to argue with you, because I frankly don't think I can reach you with my arguments. In radio terms, we don't seem to have a common frequency, none. So let's try and stay out of each other's way and leave things at this. Anything else would be a waste of time and nervous energy for both, and life is too short and the internet to huge to go into this. Thank you for your understanding. Adios, ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For anyone who's wasting their & my time on WP: please read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules first, before insisting on endless going-by-the-letter reverts, mono- or dialogues and the like. Thanks. ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In British maps of the mandate period, the site is called "Kh. Umm Jūna". I don't know a source calling it that while it was still a living village. Zero^talk 00:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Arminden, I noticed you have a running threat with Yerevantsi on Armenian Quarter. I wondered if I could help but I had a bit of trouble following the discussion. What was the original problem? You can respond on my talk page if you want. Thanks. Foreignshore (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Running thread, not threat. Sorry! Foreignshore (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Foreignshore: Hi, and thanks! Yereveantsi seemed to be the "representative" of all things Armenian in Jerusalem, but maybe it's only the name that made me think that. I tried to figure out what actually IS the Armenian Quarter (AQ), since when is it there and how did the boundaries vary in time, how is it defined etc. I have formulated it as briefly and well as I could on the talk page under "Boundaries...?". If you want, please take a look. I always try to define the topic as precisely as possible before starting to deal with it, and the AQ is not so well defined, the "ideal" map is a perfect rectangle, but some bits in the east are now counted as part of the Jewish Quarter, which brings in the propagandists who spoil every discussion concerning Israel/Palestine. So facts first :-) That brings us to the next talk page topic: "Encroachment of Jewish Qtr: demography & history, or political pressure?". The maps differ, by choosing one over another one takes position in a dispute.

Then I tried to research smth. online, with little success. Is Thoros an Armenian version of Theodore? Is there a saint by that name? I'll copy here my question from the AQ talk page: St. T(h)oros Church is puzzling me. Hethum I built it in memory of his son killed in battle by the Mamluks, but Prince T(h)oros was not a saint, so the St. T(h)oros Church must have been dedicated to/named for a Saint T(h)oros. Who would that be? If you can find out, please add him, even as a "red link", to the respective disambiguation page (Thoros, Toros, Theodore?), and please link the name on the St. Toros Church page to that saint.

That's that. Thank you for offering to help out, no matter if you do or don't have any answers. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read my latest post at Talk:Kadesh_(Israel)#Propose_deletion_:-.29_.2F_RENAMING. Please also review WP:SHOUT. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm preparing an article: see here. I'm not sure about the title, since there is a similarly named modern body that shouldn't be confused with it. If you know of any good sources or have suggestions for improvement, please let me know. Something missing is the way in which it interacted with the archaeological bodies like ASOR, PEF, FrenchOne, etc.. Zero^talk 04:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zero. Great idea. I would add "Mandate" to the title, either at the beginning or before the brackets: Mandate Palestine's DoA (...) / DoA, Mandate Palestine (...) "Mandatory" would work as well, but the title is quite long already as it is. If you add "Mandate" or "Mandatory", you might even drop the years from the title. This wording is very explicit and I did come across it, don't think anyone will object or ask for sources. Now I have to run, the real world got me back again. Thank you for calling!

PS: links or cross-reference I can think of

• British Museum -- Department of Antiquities (founded in 1807). After a brief online search, I couldn't find any British state-run institution that existed in 1920 and could have been the inspiration for the ~ and its name, maybe this one was?
• Mandatory Pal. -- Government
• IAA
• Department of Antiquities of Jordan < Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities
• Pal. equivalent
• Rockefeller Museum

Arminden (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New edition at Department of Antiquities of Mandatory Palestine. Zero^talk 12:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and congratulations!Arminden (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000:"The Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage has conducted work in the West Bank since 1994."- what about the Gaza Strip? 48-67: the Egyptians?Arminden (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. I left it out because I'm not sure about it. Zero^talk 01:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now the main article is Wadi al-Hasa. Both Wadi Hasa and Wadi Zered are redirects to it. In the process I lost your talk page comment. I hope it is ok now. Zero^talk 10:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: Thank you so much! One day I'll learn that, too. Probably... :-) Arminden (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You made some little redirect cycles, then I turned it into a big mess of redirect cycles with the page text actually deleted. I needed to use my administrator super-powers to undelete it, move it to a temporary name, delete all of the mess, then rename it back to its proper name. Zero^talk 11:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: I truly apologise. I had no idea. First I renamed it very easily to "Wadi Hasa", which is used quite frequently in English, but then I wanted to add the article al- and the simple option was somehow gone from the menu. I guessed the "Wikipedia" option would do the trick, but it didn't. Two steps of mine, hundred of yours to fix it... Sorry again. There's a Romanian saying, one half-wit throws a stone into the well and hundred smart people work hard to pull it out again.Arminden (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to apologise! It only took a minute. Zero^talk 23:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. How did you know that i am a doctor?.i studied medical ethics very well and I am the 8th most editing user at medical context. What i do is according to wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here. So i just apply the conventional naming rule. Israel is a occupational entity and palestanian just defence to free their country. Palestine is for palestenian and if someone occupy thier houses they have the right to use any mean to restore their homes and country--مصعب (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, CAMERA is an organization that exists entirely for propaganda purposes. It cannot under any circumstances be used as a source of fact as it is far below the required reliability. Zero^talk 11:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Please note that any change to the lead of Jerusalem needs to be done with a consensus, you can't just make changes to the article's lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Just did that a few days ago, only fixing obvious inaccuracies and pious mistakes and, so far, nobody has reverted my changes. The truth is in the pudding, still :) There are no holy cows, boldness (sorry, big word, but promoted as a WP guideline) is better than endless conversations (unless one is already retired and missing virtual company). Edited from my phone. Either me, when I find the time, or any decent editor with a PC, can add dozens of good sources supporting Shalem/Salim over the pretty-sounding "peace city" feel-good propaganda. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is true in most cases, but Jerusalem had an RFC and then an ARBCOM decision, so the normal rules don't necessarily apply. You can see the talk page for more info. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other hand, if nobody disagrees with the edit, and it is a minor edit, I wouldn't wake sleeping dogs. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, I was just pointing it out, in case he accidentally puts in something pro-Israel and finds himself at AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me and pro-something? Joking, right?Arminden (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, you are making a mess of the two articles Ancient synagogues in Israel and in Palestine. Please refrain from crossing from one to the other. You are practically enforcing some idea of yours about what the scope of these two respective articles should be without any prior discussion. You simply can't do that. Especially on articles where 1. there is prior discussion about this subject 2. WP:ARBPIA might be involved. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Debresser: Hi. I don't get you. The pre-/post- 70 CE distinction is essential. What's the problem? I practically added a paragraph listing the pre-70 CE synagogues, which are of high interest to both Jews (before Yavneh and Yohanan ben Zakkai they only served as place of reading the Bible), and the Christians (Jesus preached in many of them). Also, making distinction between "State of Israel" and "Land of Israel" in the scope of the two pages is more than needed - I looked up smth. on "Israel" page and thought I'm reading a Hamas brochure till I understood that it's an (as such almost useless) sub-page of the larger "Palestine" page, which was only mentioned at "Also see", a category easily missed by most. The other edits are all minor, don't affect the previous structure. Please explain.

"Archaeologists have uncovered many remains of synagogues from over two thousand years ago" - not true. In the Land of Israel there are at the most 4: Umm el-Umdan at Modi'in, Tulul Abu el-Alayik (very uncertain), Gamla (contested by some), Modi'in Illit (little published). Not over 2000 years old, but still 2TP (so pre-70 CE) are a maximum of 7 more: Wadi Hamam (Nahal Arbel), City of David ("Theodotus synagogue"), Magdala, Masada, Herodium, posibly Capernaum, and Tel Rechesh in Nahal Tabor. Basta. Qumran, Jacob Ory's second, ghost synagogue at Chorazin, and Alexander Onn's at Shuafat only deserve a mention if one wants to be over-inclusive.

"Synagogues securely dated to before the destruction of the Temple" do NOT include Capernaum and Qumran. Capernaum (the black structure underneath the "white synagogue" of C4 has not been excavated except for some minor areas, it's no more than conjunction on the base of the principle "once holy, always holy" - plausible YES; "securely dated" - certainly not. Qumran: there is no proof whatsoever that any of the excavated rooms served as a synagogue; there are 2 large rooms which MIGHT have served this purpose, so weak conjecture, nothing else.

Dabura leads to a silly comics figure. The "Golan" addition might wake sleeping dogs (Israel, heh?), but that's not an argument for a wrong wikilink.

Please refrain from reverting en masse, unless you have GOOD arguments for each single element. I do in this case.Arminden (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more revert, and you'll find yourself reported for violating WP:ARBPIA. In addition, please also review WP:BRD. Pushing that revert button is still a big problem of yours. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As usual, we'll talk this over on the talkpage, and we'll come up with something that improves the article. But you have to stop edit warring! Debresser (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calm down. One (1, like in uno - eins - un) revert is never a "war". Get the facts right, then get back to work. Arminden (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two reverts, one on two articles. In any case, I think we are already forming some consensus on the talkpages. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello
I see you added “Dubious-discuss” tags a while ago to a couple of statements here, but hadn't put anything on the talk page (per the relevant guideline) to explain what the problem is. Perhaps you could remedy that, as otherwise there is no obvious reason to keep them. Thanks, Moonraker12 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Your edit summary here seemed a bit rude. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Killing civilians is a bit rude, too. And quite a bit rude is also sympathysing with it, and hiding a fact - terrorist, murder - behind euphemisms like "militant".Arminden (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Church of the Holy Sepulchre 13:46, 26 January 2018

quotation from article: "removal of the "Immovable Ladder","

Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, come to your senses. Check my edits and then start talking of "vandalising". You're so out of control that you can't even get the section title right. The "Immovable Ladder" isn't worth more than a footnote, definitely not a mention in the lead and 4 (!) wikilinks within the Holy Sepulchre article. That's the holiest church in Christianity, and the ladder is just a weird detail. It's still there, with one or two wikilinks, mentioned in a hat tag or whatever it's called, so basically yet another wikilink at the top the "facade" paragraph, and the whole ladder history is widely presented - that's far more space than it actually deserves. So calm down. Have a nice weekend, Arminden (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You vandalized the page, period. If you don't like that being linked there, then actually get rid of it rather than vandalize the page.Link Vandalism That's my opinion. quotation from article: "removal of the "Immovable Ladder"," (I don't care if the ladder is in the article zero times or a thousand times. But what you did is link vandalism. That's all I mean to say.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, it looks like you made a typo at 13:46 on 26 January at Church of the Holy Sepulchre, writing Immovable Ladder, leaving the letter 'I' out of the wikilink brackets. See User talk:Geographyinitiative#This could have been a typo on Immovable Ladder?. I removed the word 'Vandalism' from the above header, since it is not vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I see. EdJohnston, thank you! I thought the angry Geo guy made the typo when he started this nonsense here. Sorry for the typo. There is no way in the world it can be misconstrued as intentional - just follow the logic of my chain of edits. Enough of it, let's go on with our lives. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of Church of the Holy Sepulchre at 10:28, 26 January 2018 Arminden, the page was as follows:

quote from page: "of the "Immovable Ladder,""

after the change to Church of the Holy Sepulchre at 13:46, 26 January 2018 Arminden, the page was as follows:

quote from page: "of the "Immovable Ladder","

It is an example of 'changing internal or external links on a page to inappropriate targets'. link vandalism. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling." ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You violated 1rr on ARBPIA with this edit, kindly self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've closed this report. Please note the result. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm amazed you've done that. It's your job to source material that you want to add. You know about our verifiablity policy I'm sure. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't be. I have it from Professor Gabriel Barkay. I'll look for a source if I find the time. It's a highly worthy bit of info, and has no bias whatsoever. Such are often incentives for other editors, much like red links. Always with the reader's benefit in mind, first and foremost! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller:: Thank you Doug. It seems that Prof. Barkay still is close to the mainstream opinion as it flows around the Net, but the scholarly debate has moved on. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I liked your edit at Tel Megiddo. If you don't have other sources ready try this one: Early_Iron_Age_Epigraphy_and_Chronological_Revision_a_summary_article_in_P._James_and_P._van_der_Veen_eds._Solomon_and_Shishak_ trespassers william (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot, Danny. It took a lot of reading, and in the end it seems that Prof. Barkay isn't so up-to-date anymore. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is not a single sourced statement in the paragraph I edited, so it is fair game for deletion. Instead of deleting, I edited it for poor English and repetition. So much for trying to improve the article...Once you are reverting, by the way, you are welcome to re-add the ugly tag at top citing lack of references.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Gilabrand:. It was a stub, I fleshed it out, added all the sources one can get relevant info from (except Piana), so now it's about slow patient work. There's nothing there I didn't find in Boas & Khamisy, Pringle or Biller, or in other good sources. I see no reason to remove good info at this stage. If you have the time, check out Mathias Piana, Burgen und Städte der Kreuzzugszeit, Michael Imhof Verlag (2008). It's great if you fix the English, but please w/o removing info. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Arminden. Your recent edit [6] to Zimri (prince) restored unsourced material in violation of Wikipedia policy. Here's the relevant policy page: WP:V. And here's a relevant quote:

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 other sections are also in violation of WP:V, then they should be fixed, but the existence of unsourced material in the "Islam" section is not carte blanche to restore unsourced material elsewhere in the article, especially unsourced material that accuses living persons of belonging to a terrorist group. See WP:BLP. Alephb (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Alephb. We have a misunderstanding. First, I did quote a valid source. Second, I don't think there were any names mentioned there, so no specific person can be affected; and apart from that, the four initial "Priests" have been legally convicted, which eliminates the issue of hearsay/POV or whatever. Cheers,

Good work but section headings should not be posed as questions, see MOS:HEADINGS. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish I could find opinions about Haarmann - I'm pretty dubious about him, not that I'm happy with Merlini either. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question marks: shortest way to indicate controversy. Otherwise risk of overly long headings for 2nd- or 3rd-grade paras.

Research: Doug, sorry, no time. Too much spent here as is. About to be killed for it :)

Your changes were unexplained, and they violated, WP:LANGVAR, MOS:DATEFORMAT and other things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Walter Görlitz:. If you prefer, we can communicate in German. You reversed wholesale w/o properly looking through the edits.

"Orthodox" requires a capital O, no discussions there.

Spaces: I edit quite a bit on my phone. In citation notes, long words like "accessdate" create awkward blanks; using a (WP allowed) hyphen solves the problem. Similarly, adding spaces between categories has the same result. Try and you'll see. Nobody has ever had an issue with it until now.

Spaces in and under headings: fully unneeded, not required - in ENGLISH Wikipedia, unlike other languages. However, separating picture files from the text by a space helps editors find what they're looking for.

I hope this clarifies my intentions. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to apply the capital "o". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How generous. You broke it,you fix it. Had enough of stiff, self-righteous WP patrolmen. Arminden (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arminden, just wanted to let you know that I altered your edits to Belmont. Belmont is already quite long and there is a disambiguation page for Belmonte, so I don't think we need to make Belmont even longer by adding 'Belmonte' items. And if we do decide to add Belmonte, we should add them all. Leschnei (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah into Holy Fire. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had no idea. Big BS, anyway, none of us is here for the "credit", but donating time for the sake of the user. I did what I could - I'm just using my phone in a hotel room after work. If you have time to spare, pls try to add the 2018 TV interview of the Armenian cleric who witnessed 3 times how the Patriarch lit the candles from a lamp. Cheers,

@Zero0000 and Mannanan51: Hi, sorry to bother, I still lack some basic editing skills. Could you please create a page for "Theoctistus of Palestine", using what's already there on the Euthymius page and the disambiguation page? Thank you as always! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is created. I leave the copy-editing to you. Zero^talk 09:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000 and Mannanan51: "It is created" - the words of a true demiurge! Many thanks, truly grateful. Arminden (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, I wanted to thank you for your very good and pertinent edits on Mosaic of Rehob. Keep-up the good work!Davidbena (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidbena: David, thank you so much! I really appreciate it.

User:Arminden, shalom. As you questioned whether or not there was a synagogue named "Rambam" in Jerusalem, the following link is to allay all doubts: Enjoy! Click here. ---Davidbena (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidbena: David, hi, and thank you! I have searched as much as I could, and have in the end written to the contributor who has taken & posted the picture, and on the Wikimedia page, as well, waiting for answers like yours. Almost all existing "Rambam Synagogue" postings describe or show the Ramban Synagogue, so I thought that it's always a case of typo/mix-up. I will amend my postings. Thanks and cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already corrected three of them. If there are more that need correcting, you'll be the judge of that.Davidbena (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Arminden, shalom. I noticed where you were taken aback by the way some of our Wikipedia pages are written in such a way as to place a transliterated foreign word before its actual English meaning. My humble view on this matter is that it depends on what the article actually treats about. In Sefer Torah it seems relatively alright to place the English meaning before its Hebrew transliteration, but I must say that this is not always the case. Take, for example, other foreign words used now in English: Hamantash, or Shofar, or Za'atar, or Genmaicha, or Onsen, or Wampum, or Sushi, or Minyan, or Glasnost, or Perestroika, among an endless host of other foreign loan-words whose names are known as such by most English speakers. The article Tallit, it would seem, falls into this last category, since it is well-known by such name. I see no rule that requires of us to put the English meaning first. Of course, an explanation is almost always given in ordinary English which explains the meanings of these foreign words.Davidbena (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidbena:, Hi David! I think you slightly misunderstood something. I am very much aware that languages have always borrowed words from other languages when needed. What is as well known to me, is that in religious Jewish circles it is very common to mix Yiddish or Hebrew terms into the language spoken in the country of residence, and mainly religious terms. There is nothing new here. The problem is, unlike sushi or pizza, tefillin or tallit are words not understood by probably over 90% of the native speakers of that language (if not more), not to speak of Wikipedia users who look up English Wikipedia, but aren't all that fluent in English. I can assure you that the vast majority of Judaism-related terms are total Chinese to pretty much all of the Gentiles, and to a great many of the secular Jews. The more one is immersed into a certain lifestyle, the harder it becomes to realise how little known that particular lifestyle is to non-members. So, I have zero problem with Torah, bagels, maybe also gefilte fish being used as such: but none of the terms I replaced in the articles are widely known outside religious Jewish circles. Just do a test, and you'll be surprised. Beyond anything I might say here, that could sound subjective, I am sure Wikipedia must have some guidelines regarding non-English terms for which there is a well-established English equivalent (tefillin-phylacteries, tallit-prayer shawl), and the obligation to explain in plain English those which do not have English equivalents. Honestly, I have learned most of these terms in English first, from books and alike, and some I still don't understand unless they're explained in English - and you can see that I'm not an absolute beginner in this field, even though I'm nowhere close to being well-versed, either. Many of these articles I looked up in order to learn something new, and the Hebrew was an obstacle. So I guess I'm a good case of (average?) "Wikipedia user". Thanks for keeping up the dialog, and all the best - Arminden (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proper English word for Tefillin is "phylacteries." A simple redirect (e.g. Phylacteries) will often correct the problem of unfamiliarity with the Hebrew word, but even here it will take you to a disambiguation page with other relative meanings. Jewish audiences make-up a large percentage of users on the English Wikipedia, and almost all Jewish readers will understand the Hebrew loan-words tallit and tefillin. In fact, many non-Jews already recognise these words for what they are. If in doubt, you should raise the issue on the article's Talk-Page. This will help you reach a larger consensus. The gist of the matter is this: Even where a word such as Onsen is not understood by all English speakers, its specific and prominent use in one language makes it a legal term of use in other languages.Davidbena (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David, I am exposed to many hundreds if not thousands of non-Jews of various origins annually, and I think I know from first-hand experience how well they are accustomed to Jewish terminology when confronted with it: not. Let's not forget the difference between the bunch of people active here as editors, or our friends from a chosen environment, and the vast majority of people who do look up WP every now and then, but aren't studying the topics in depth. As about secular Jews... you'd be surprised. Traditional education isn't what it used to be :) About many Jews using Wikipedia: so what, and then it's fair to leave the rest outside? I won't even start reminding you who's been using that argument against Jews. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arminden:, Even so, a non-Japanese person who is not familiar with the Japanese words Onsen and Genmaicha, or a non-Jew who is not familiar with the Yiddish words Gefilte fish and Hamantash, or one who is not familiar with the Russian or Arabic languages, but who read pages containing other foreign loan-words such as Glasnost, or Perestroika, or Za'atar, that in itself is not enough to diminish from their use on Wikipedia, nor to change the article's format. The criteria, I would think, would be that these foreign words are prominently used in their native country and enjoy some wide-spread popularity within their country so as to warrant its use in the English-language online encyclopedia. If you wish to change Wikipedia's policy regarding this, take the issue to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Davidbena, David, did you look at my actual edits? I always left the Hebrew term in place AT LEAST once on the page, in the lead or in another prominent place, but replaced it with the well-established English word (where there is one) in the rest of the text. Where the term is very specific and has no popular English equivalent, I added an explanation next to it, because constant clicking is a big nuisance; the user will thank me :) All in all, I am sure no rule needs to be changed: ENGLISH must have priority, and specific Hebrew terms have to be mentioned AND explained. Nothing revolutionary. Whereas the opposite--yes, that does break the rules of any encyclopaedia.
What's with you and Perestroika? I loved Gorbachev for it, but it has nothing to do with this discussion: it's like champagne or Renaissance -- it only covers the entire meaning if you use the original word. In this case it's a Russian, but by now international, word. For tefillin you have phylacteries; for Perestroika you don't have any English word. Comes from the fact that Christian Europe has been dealing with Jews and their religion ever since... forever; the USSR and Japanese food are, in comparison, fast-passing trends. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I did look at your edits, and with the exception of Tallit, you are right. Even with "Tallit" it was unnecessary, in my view. I was more concerned about a trend here, where you would go through all the foreign-word pages and preempt a term that is explained later in the page. Perestroika was used here merely as an example of a foreign loan-word, perhaps not readily understood by many who speak English, and yet requires no further explanation before being introduced with the word.Davidbena (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is not appropriate. nableezy - 23:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nableezy: you're right, sorry, I apologise. I was getting desperate. The text was so substandard that it was hard to believe it made it in. When it comes to Muslim history, people are so unaware of their own national past, and in turn are so soaked in propaganda that it's painful. The text was mixing up Muslim dynasties centuries apart, but made a point in favourably comparing Ghassanids to Herodians in holding on to a region. Duh... Where's the point, other than "Arabs are better than Jews"? It's schoolyard level. Of course, there was no "Byzantine Rome" when the Herodians were around, and the term itself is a bit of an original invention. Things like Qutuz not being a sultan yet at 'Ain Jalut are small mistakes in comparison. Or "the Heights represented a formidable obstacle the Crusader armies were not able to conquer", when they actually held Banias for decades and had a condominium with Damascus over the Sawad/Suete for quite a while.
Maybe you can help me learn something: who were the Arab geographers of the sixth century describing the Golan as a jebel? I say 6th because that was the topic of the quoted book, but maybe I'm wrong and "Byzantine period" means later here, even though it becomes problematic if that still can be termed Byzantine if it means later than 636. If it's a correct fact though, I'd be truly very happy to learn about it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be totally frank with you, Im not actually Syrian (or Palestinian), so it isnt really my own national past, and my interest in the Golan is mostly confined to the modern politics of it. You'l notice I have not even touched any of your edits on this subject (the only one I reverted was your changing something about the modern political situation into a claimed from said). If I knew the answers to those questions I would certainly try to lend a hand, but to be honest in recognizing my own limitations, I dont know the answer to your question. Just the edit summary read as a bit demeaning, and as the edit itself was fine (as far as I know) I thought it better to nip that in the bud with you here. Take care, nableezy - 12:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Arminden, I was scrolling at my talk page history and found your message. I remember now that I had removed it without reading. I do apologize for doing so. I know its been a few years already, but it just now dawned at me. I should've replied. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it seems that Nadav Na'aman, one of the most important Israeli archaeologists, doesn't have an article. Could it be? [7] [8] Might you be the one to create it? Hint, hint. Zero^talk 19:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: hi, and thank you for your trust. I'll be working away from home for quite a while, no way I can do it on my phone. Let's see when I'll manage to get to it. Life's getting in the way :) Have a great day.

Arminden, thanks for calling my attention to the fact that someone ought to write an article describing the import of the Latin term Plene scriptum. Well, there is now such an article. Thanks for nudging me in this direction.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidbena: - David, thank you, I'm rushing now to read it!

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

advertenciarap060@RMaung (WMF) 2804:D45:E067:3500:9075:FD37:827C:7648 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, shalom. Please see my response to your constructive edit on the Tarichaea article, which you can see here.Davidbena (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing that silly error on the Lovers of Cluj-Napoca article. Can't believe I didn't catch that. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may wish to comment on Talk:Bobby Fischer#Ben Klassen. Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Jerm. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Jerm (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jerm: Hi Jerm. Sorry, we don't know each other yet. What edit are you referring to please? Arminden (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know exactly which one. If you can't maintain civility, then you don't need to be editing. You also reverted again and ignored my edit summary concerning WP:BRD. Jerm (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I had some 3 reversals lately. Please don't assume, be more specific. Arminden (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Alexander Jannaeus, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jerm (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jerm: I must leave the house now, but let's invite some distinguished arbiters later in the day. For now, please refrain from bulk-reversing. If you think you must disagree with one or another of my edits, please discuss them here or there; we can reach agreement, as you have seen these past days. Bulk reversals though and gratuitous accusations of vandalism harm both the quality of the article, and your own reputation, so please hold back with those. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani and Zero0000: I see Jerm won't accept a civilised discussion. Please do take a look at the edits [9] and decide. Thank you very much. Arminden (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you remove sourced content and manipulate it where it contradicts the source, then I have a right to remove it. Per WP:BRD, you should've been starting discussions at the articles talk page to begin with, but I have do it for you since the only thing you know how to do is revert. Yes, all you do is revert editors who disagree with your changes. Your editing style and the way you interact with other editors who disagree with you hasn't changed since you started editing. And I already know you are familiar with editors @Nishidani and Zero0000:. Per WP:CANVAS, such behavior like pinging other editors is not really acceptable. You could have at least started a discussion, but you want them to establish an argument on your behalf or preserve your new changes. Either way, I am treating your new changes as disruptive and vandal-like. Jerm (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jerm (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I saw the ANI thread and have looked at your recent activity. You really need to take on board MOS:ERA. The project has very little tolerance for people churning stylistic choices like this without consensus. EEng 09:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Let me add something else. Because of the specialized nature of the material I can't judge a lot of the changes you made; some where clearly improvements, the fixing of a comma splice being one case my eye happened to fall on. In addition, you're right that it's best that other editors selectively review and back out bits and pieces of your changes, leaving other parts they think useful in place, but when you make very large numbers of changes in a single edit that becomes very hard to do. My advice would be edit one section at a time. EEng 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You just walked into a hornets nest, changing AD to CE. I learned that here: I thought it would be "a cakewalk" to change Siege of Jerusalem (70 AD) to Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE): hah! ...was I ever wrong. If I recall correctly, the WP:ERA rules came out of some of the very first arbcom cases, 10-15+ years ago: that is why they are so cumbersome, (see eg WP:Requests for arbitration/Sortan; WP:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2) Huldra (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are we actually doing here? How many normal people, who are not themselves editing, do actually use these articles? Arminden (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After your revert of my removal of a self-reference on Herodium and your explanation in the edit summary, I had another look at WP:SELFREFERENCE, and decided to open a talkpage discussion. I'd be grateful for your input at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid#Referring_to_other_sections_in_article. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've dealt with it in the article itself. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You made it better, but see the discussion, and specifically the reference to WP:CLICKHERE, that your edit did not solve all issues. Debresser (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to apologize for my reaction at Alexander J. When I saw that you were the one who reverted me, all I was thinking was the previous edit war we had at/near Christmas, but you started the discussion this time, and I all I did was contradict WP:CIVIL in hopes that the discussion would end ASAP. Jerm (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[10] and User talk:Khruner#Land of Punt. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: No, I hadn't detected it. Thank you for your help! (S)he seems a bit over the top in every matter concerning the Horn of Africa. I'll let you police the waves, my WP times will be over for a while, the real world is calling, damn... Till next time, and take care! Arminden (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, You can ask me to send you articles from Haaretz but you will get into trouble if you post them here. I suggest you remove it asap. Zero^talk 05:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: Hi, and thanks, like always :) Arminden (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: hi! I haven't heard of you in a while. I've probably pinged you a few times to often, too. I hope you're OK and using the Corona break the best way possible. All the best, and take care! Arminden (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arminden. I'm trying to get some research done but Wikipedia keeps throwing up interesting historical questions that I'm addicted to as you know. Despite being house-bound, I can't keep up. Be safe. Zero^talk 12:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: Thank you and stay well!Arminden (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want a copy of the book, I'll have one soon in pdf, you can email me. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: sure I do. I vaguely remember Zero sending me a link or smth about how to email via Wikipedia, but I still don't have a clue and I can't find it. If you don't mind... And if you do ("what the heck...!"), thanks anyway, I very much appreciate you offering. Arminden (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a link on the side of an editor's talk page, if they have it enabled, and also at the top of mine. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Why did you remove the type "Jewish" from the infobox in this edit? On a sidenote, it would be helpful for other editors if you'd use edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. First, I think "type" refers to smth. more specific, like right of passage, agricultural, spring festival... Second, it says "Observed by: Jews" right above it. Avoiding overkill. Nothing else, I don't have any intention of passing on Lag BaOmer to the Baptists, Hindus or Sunnis :)

I quote from Template:Infobox holiday:

Debresser (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. If you really think "Observed by: Jews. Type: Jewish" makes sense, go ahead. I don't.Arminden (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand what you are saying. I am talking about something else. Turns out that the "type" parameter is there to change the default color of the infobox. That is all it does. If it were for the informational value, then of course nothing is added by it. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Debresser: Ah, I see. Then it belongs back in, of course, and sorry. Maybe "Observed by: Jews" can then be left out? It just looks silly. But that's the digital form, repetitive, like one-and-zero, little can be done w/o lots of coding. Thank you for your patience. Maybe you can take a quick look at Kohlit and its talk-page? It's more in your domain. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit summary of this edit is not neutral. Historians also talk about "rule". I don't mind the edit itself, since they are basically synonymous, but the edit summary shows hidden intens that are not purely academic. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Test). Dovid, thanks. This damn phone doesn't work properly, it didn't save my longer answer to you twice already. Arminden (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am watching your talkpage, and will patiently await your longer reply. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Debresser: So, sorry if it upset you. It seems evident that both Jewish-Zionist and Arab-Palestinian nationalists have their favourite historical periods and those they hate, which sometimes even coincide (see Crusader period). "Era" is a grand term, "rule" is suggestive ("it's not their place, but they rule it by force"); "period" is neutral. Zionist historiography used to talk about "Canaanite period" and "Israelite period", terms abandoned in favour of Bronze and Iron Age. The Muslim conquest, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid (sub)periods together form the Early Muslim period, sorry for those allergic to periods in the history of Jerusalem that include "Muslim" in their name. The Crusader period is not much loved by either side. The Mamluk and Ottoman periods are distinct from each other, unless one sees all Muslims as the same old... something. Wherever there still are territories without a universally recognised status, Wiki editors can go by preference or minimal consensus, i.e. try their luck with Jordanian/Israeli rule or period, 'cause neither will make everybody happy. Anyway, historiography is a highly ideological field, and the terminology reflects that. That's what I meant. So yes, sometimes I'm more diplomatic and sometimes less, I apologise if it upset you, and I'll try to hold back a bit more. But what I wrote is pretty much fact - and obvious to anyone. There is a fluid line between hypocrisy and diplomacy. And civility towards intentional reality twisters is sometimes a difficult proposal :) Have a great spring day! Arminden (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't upset, since I agree that "period" is a great term. At the same time, I often see "rule" used as well in history books. The word "rule" is also a fact, not, as some interpret it, a claim for a lack of legitimacy. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:James Robertson (British - Mount Moriah and the Mosk of Omar - Google Art Project.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CptViraj (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gezer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transjordan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not asking for meatpuppetry! But if you need a strong source for kibbutz Shavuot this is it Shalom Lilker,Kibbutz Judaism: A New Tradition in the Making, Associated University Presses, 1982 ISBN 978-0-845-34740-9 pp.192ff. By all means use it as you see fit, or ignore it.

Being me, I couldn't just source the kibbutz section but would adjust defects in the article itself, which has no historical sense (and be reverted immediately of course!)- with not enough given to what we know of the probable earliest form of the festival before rabbinical usage transformed it into a giving of the Torah focus (Tannaitic sages, perhaps simply because Jews no longer had extensive farming communities. downgraded the agrarian motifs-it is the only festival, is it not, which has no tractate devoted to it in the Mishnah). Ironically, the kibbutz adaptation refurbished, imaginatively, a structure closer to the eartiest agricultural version. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani:, hi. No need for the introduction, other than making me look up what the hell meatpuppetry means. I apologise for not dealing with it yet. Lots of real-life chores have piled up and I'm only editing out of habit, compulsively and with a bad conscience, while the topic you offered me requires a clear head and time. I need to read and research about it. Everything religion-related for me is like a foreign language I need to learn first, driven by curiosity and external circumstances, not passion. But what you suggested is an interesting topic and I'll try to deal with it. Sorry for being so slow. Best regards, Arminden (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies rather. Know what you mean: I've been up since 5 am after a 3 hour nap, and am sitting down now at 2.30 or thereabouts, except for 5 minutes at breakfast, to look into wiki, after fastwalking to a supermarket several kms away to shop for relatives, picking up tax returns, buying fishflakes for my pond's denizens, meeting a dental appointment, rushing home to pick two bags of loquats I'd forgotten to cull and take them back to my dentist friend and his nurse as a gift for their reopening, then to the bank to pay a land tax, and a dozen other things.

Don't worry about the ref. I thought you had requested one on that page, can't remember now except that I regretted posting the one I found here. Improper. Yes, religion is weird, utterly strange. It's strange for a pagan like me who, weaned, just sucked thereafter on the tits of Greek myth. I knew they were just so stories from the start, and what made the bible weird was that the structure of the tales was identically mythological but one was expected to believe it really happened. That is deeply enigmatic, at least in the modern world. Chuck the source into the bin if it doesn't cover what your edit aimed for. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I need your email-address in order to give you info about the Burgoyne-book, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I haven't done that much if at all. DougWeller has recently written me how it's done - a link on the side of an editor's talk page, he said, but I can't identify it (he has added a plain, visible "invitation" at the top of his talk page, that's a different story). I couldn't find it on either my talk page or yours. I'd be happy to share email addresses with you, but not to make mine public. Sorry, you were kind and offered me something nice and useful, and now I bother you with this. Ignore if you wish. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you still have the email address you had in July 2019? If so, I can give it to Huldra in private if you give me permission. Zero^talk 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: hi! Yes, still the same. I'd be very grateful, thanks! Arminden (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Did you get my email? Huldra (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huldra: hi! Yes, thank you very much indeed. I apologise for not reacting faster, I didn't access it yet, busy with other things, but I really appreciate it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AE#Arminden. - Makeandtoss (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AE result

Hello. I have closed the AE report with a warning to both of you. Please review closely and observe the instructions in my closing summary. Thank you. El_C 15:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C: hi. Acknowledged, all is good. Thanks and have a nice, quiet day, on- as well as offline. Arminden (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ehav. Thank you for your great work. You have contributed a photo of Yemenite Torah scrolls (Sfarim Torah) on gevil from "my Beth Knesset", but without explicitly indicating what synagogue that is. Several pages are using the picture, most writing that it's from "Rambam Synagogue in Jerusalem". There is no such synagogue in Jerusalem (Rambam = Moshe ben Maimon, Maimonides), only a quite famous Ramban Synagogue (Ramban = Moshe ben Nachman, Nachmanides). I assumed that one is meant, and have modified the caption to Ramban Synagogue, but I need to have your explicit confirmation, otherwise I need to remove this part of the caption altogether. In your place, I would modify the file name to the specific name of the synagogue, so there's no doubt about it anymore. The better and more precise the caption, the more a picture can be used. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, this is Ehav Ever. Sorry I didn't notice your post in 2019. I haven't been writing on Wiki for a few years. I also don't remember my original password so I am using this login.

Concerning the Rambam Beith Keneseth. Our Beith Keneseth is in Qatamonim. See pictures below of the location.

בית כנסת רמב"ם בקטמונים

192.56.175.2 :(talk) 06:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I have learned from a fellow editor, Davidbena, that there is indeed a Yemenite Rambam Synagogue in Jerusalem - in Nahalat Ahim. I am sure that is the one you are going to. Can you please add "Nahalat Ahim" to the caption please? Thank you! The fact is, LOTS of people simply mistake Ramban for Rambam or mistype it, and your synagogue is not very well known, so it can be confusing.
Do you maybe have some details about the age of the scrolls? "200 years old" sounds a bit generic. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There aren't a lot of details about the scroll. Essentially, it is about 200 years old and was brought from Yemen by Rabbi Mosheh Giyath, probably around 1950's, who was the Rabbi of the Beith Keneseth Rambam until he passed away about 8 years ago. Until he passed away, Rabbi Giyath was one of the last living students of Rabbi Yihhyeh Qafahh. From what I was told by one person was that the sofer of the scroll was from the Sharabi family. That was information I got from the people who were there when I took the picture.192.56.175.2 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ehav, thanks a lot! Arminden (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gihon Spring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jebus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Ramla

added a link pointing to Aqueduct

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim period, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zoozaz1 (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zoozaz1: hi, and thanks again! Sorry to bother, but I'm just a bit confused. Now I want to do a similar action elsewhere, and you wrote that I'm entitled to create a new article without posting a request. That's excellent news, but the link you've kindly indicated is the one I've used already - and the wizard there takes you straight to - applying for a review. So no gain. Or am I missing something? Isn't there a simple link to "create a new article w/o review", I do the work, sign it (4x ~), and it gets published right away? That's how I thought it would go, and that would really be of great help. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, I think I found something - right underneath the wizard link. I'll try. If it is indeed what I'm looking for, I think it should say explicitly: "for creating a new article without the need for a review". Let's see. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, I can see how that would be confusing. The way I usually create articles is to look up the article name you want to create in the search bar and then click to create the article in the results from the search. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zoozaz1, great, that's the kind of short access I meant. I'll try it out, thanks! Arminden (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This book by Zvi Shilony has a large amount of detail regarding the Kinneret-Degania area. I have it on paper but I don't know of an electronic access better than snippets. Currently I have urgent work to do that doesn't allow me to review all the relevant articles. Zero^talk 02:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and thank you. No problem, really, sorry for bothering, I'm happy you're busy and not just killing time like some of us. Stay healthy and focus on real life. Arminden (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not use Paki (slur) anywhere on Wikipedia. That is not acceptable. El_C 16:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I truly apologise. I only have one British-Pakistani friend, and it's from him & other common friends that I picked up the word. I had no idea. Sorry. Arminden (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC) I see I'm in good (??!!) company: George W. Bush and a bunch of other clueless Americans. I was just clueless, I don't have the excuse of being American (whom did I offend now...?). Warning: here I was trying hard to be funny. The first time I just had no idea. Sorry again. Arminden (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC) @El C: I see you're being funny, too. Quoting Lenin on parliamentarism? That might offend a few people, to. A few million people? Anyway, I'm quite likely to still be in the lead, with >200M Pakistanis. I think I'm in trouble... Arminden (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, I am not interested in engaging in polemics with you at this time. Please stop pinging me. El_C 16:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no polemic whatsoever. Allowing myself a joke or two. If not your type of humour, I'll stop. Promise. See, I didn't even ping you this time. Let's stay serious, the world is far too funny a place as it is, let's restore the balance. Arminden (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in David Duke, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Because the title is modified with the word "former", it's properly set in lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES. —Eyer (If you reply, add ((reply to|Eyer)) to your message to let me know.) 22:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eyer: hi. Go and try to pull the same trick on the Grand Wizard page. Change the formers to lower-case. Good luck. I'm generally against overcapitalisation, but a) I'm not a one-trick dog, and b) I'll always try to help people distinguish between regular common nouns (with or w/o attached adjectives) on one hand, and unusual titles on the other. Your favourite WP rule works well with kings and presidents, but not so much with Grand Wizards. It's too specific, and it consists of a noun and an adjective that can too easily be taken at face value. German has the Duden, French the Academy rules (or laws rather), but English has none of those god-like institutions and guides itself by a certain amount of logic. Not by blindly obeying this or that specific set of more or less arbitrary rules. Bye. Arminden (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: go and de-capitalise titles like Shining Star of Paektu Mountain. I hope you know where to look for it. Arminden (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you were one of the editors adding links to biblical verses, like at Amorites (Special:Diff/953658303). While these can be helpful, they are primary sources for Wikipedia, where secondary sources should be used for any interpretation or commentary. If you know scholarly secondary sources that could be cited there, those would be most helpful. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: hi. I think you got me wrong. I'm only adding wikilinks to verses already quoted, or move them from footnotes (which are wrong; I've been told it's an outdated practice used many years ago), to inline links. So basically exactly in line with what you are saying. Have a nice Sunday! Arminden (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't contest it, the invitation to find/add secondary sources is still on. —PaleoNeonate – 03:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Special:Diff/974494694, you put that the publisher of Ramla is both "Carta for the Israel Exploration Society" and "Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA)". Which of these is correct? Currently, only the latter is showing up in the article. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: hi, and thanks! It's a leftover from a previous edit, much of the article didn't have almost any details re. the sources and I tried to add all that's relevant. The IAA website is reproducing the Carta content, so it's Carta via IAA website. It was quite clear from the context & quoted website, but still a mistake. I've fixed it now, thanks for drawing my attention. Arminden (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you see "Supreme Deliciousness" - f...f...f...f...f...f...f oh, no, no Tourette's again, please... - run! Don't try reason, logic, arguments, reference to IQ (I-What?!), common sense, real life... Run! Don't curse, don't exhaust your knowledge of expletives, don't bother to fix the world... run. And don't ever forget again. Arminden (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or you could ask other editors to help. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, here you are! How did you find this? Thanks, much appreciated, but really, it's not worth the hassle. Arminden (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am your friendly talkpage stalker. Debresser (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Debresser: hi. If you wish to - go for it. I sure as hell won't. Considering the possible/probable synagogue found there, to mention that the Byzantine period corresponds to the Jewish (maybe give up: Israeli) "Mishnaic and Talmudic periods" is absolutely relevant and legitimate. But don't blame me if... Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with his removal, not his reason. being a bit "Israel-centric", as he calls it, is normal on an article about the Golan Heights and discussing a synagogue. However, the Mishnah was closed around 200 CE and the Gemara around 500 CE, so a synagogue that was build around 500 can not be called Mishnaic and hardly Talmudic. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The 四海之內皆兄弟 Barnstar
	For your trenchantly erudite toponymic tolutiloquence over Silwan/Siloam, making some stillwan greymatter light up with much needed hyperthermic illumination Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arminden,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 02:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dobry den' to the @Czar:! Great sense of humour in choosing the nickname. I truly thank you for your trust, but I'm afraid that my brush with the topic didn't go beyond Sholem Schwarzbard, and a bit on the Spanish Civil War and Emma Goldman. It's an interesting philosophy, of which I should know more, but that's better suited for a very long 'to do' list than for my immediate plans. Sorry, thank you, and keep up the good work. Arminden (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gugumani. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 23#Gugumani until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Rosguill: ouch, just wrote a message on your page. It's there. It's getting funny, I had actually forgotten about it, and I never thought it would implicate more than a bot or, at the most, one resourceful editor to bump into it and remove it w/o delay. A bottle that slipped into the ocean, kind of. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, gotcha, although you put the message on my user page instead of my user talk page. I'll go through and WP:G7 delete it in a bit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arminden, I have removed the references from Nahala because WP:DABREF clearly states that references are not used on DAB pages, and now that there is an article for Nahalat Binyamin, the references can go there. Leschnei (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC) @Leschnei: hi, and thanks! I had parked all these references here while preparing to write the article, and then I forgot about it. Good you saw it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the Bikur Cholim Hospital buildings now have huge lettering identifying them as branches of Shaare Zedek Medical Center. We cannot call the former German Hospital building part of today's Bikur Cholim Hospital. Perhaps this caption can be worded: Nighttime exterior of the former German Hospital, today a branch of Shaare Zedek Medical Center. Yoninah (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm updating the picture so you can see the new wording. Yoninah (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yoninah:, wait! Bikur Cholim is now part of the Sha'arei Tzedek chain! So no need to change anything. The name Bikur Cholim remains, as do the historical names Deaconesses (Diakonissen) or German Hospital, and Ziv Hospital. Arminden (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC) ::@Yoninah: Or whatever. People and guide books are not running with the official name changes. Gaydamak came and went, now it's Sha'arei Tzedek, but the old names stick. As long as they are both in, everybody's happy. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK with me. BTW the Bikur Cholim Hospital article needs some serious updating on the ownership change. Yoninah (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Yoninah: Fine with me. I'm more interested in history :) As I thought, now it's "Eduardo and Jovita Cojab Building" in the "City Center Campus". Names over names nobody ever cares about. American mania. Don't think we should try to keep up with it. With substantial stuff, yes. Did the Cojabs finance a new department? Then yes. Otherwise it's endless. Shame for the much prettier night picture. The reason Santa Claus became so famous is because of the story of how he helped out WITHOUT making a fuss, without letting people know who's been the benefactor. Not quite the Safra, Cojab,... etc. style. But as long as they help, not hinder, let them put their names wherever they please. Arminden (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? I never liked the night picture (it was the only time I could take it) and was excited to update it in the daytime. It's still on Wikimedia Commons. Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Yoninah: De gustibus :) So both are yours? Congrats! Arminden (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Arminden Since you were the first to notice the article and offered some objections before , now there is a serious Talk about the article , you can join if you are interested to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Begin%E2%80%93Sadat_Center_for_Strategic_Studies , Thank YouAleviQizilbash (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor AleviQizilbash: Hi. Thank you for offering, but I honestly won't have the motivation to deal with it. I'm happy that I've put a discussion in motion, this institution seems quite dangerous to me, as it is using authors with impressive CVs, but with a very clear tendency and is hiding behind two names, Begin and Sadat, of which they are clearly representing only one - Begin. Sadat must be turning in his grave every time they're publishing an article using his name in the letterhead. I find it ugly (disingenuous, manipulative, cowardly, pick your word) to hide behind names misleading the public, so no matter if I do agree with their work or not, I think they should be at least kept in check where we can. But it's one crusade too many for me, sorry. If I come across a concrete article where they intersect with a topic I'm working on, then yes. Thank you very much for your invitation and good luck, Arminden (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit to Azzopardi appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Astounding (and assumed accidental) alliteration: Arjayay addresses Arminden about Azzopardi. EEng 07:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arjayay: hi! Arjayay, I personally don't think P.P. Azzopardi is a remarkable sculptor, but the Maltese seem to take some pride in his work and an editor has added the picture of a statue of his to the John the Baptist article, with a red link for the artist. After seeing that (and moving the picture to a less prominent position on the page, as it was set next to da Vinci and Piero della Francesca), I added him to the list. Which list is a "local patriotism" statement for all intents and purposes, with articles on a football player who "also played 10 times for a Maltese FA XI, a few years before Malta played his first official international game" and alike. Perfectly legitimate, not every nation has a Maradona - or da Vinci, nor should they. If you insist on Wiki rules & regulations about disamb. pages not containing red links - I totally disagree, they help motivate editors to write articles, and offer a more complete picture on the topic for everybody. For me it was extremely interesting to see in how many countries and in how many domains this family or group of families have ended up living and working. You took out a 19th-century Maltese sculptor, a Maltese youth athlete, and a Canadian actress, citing indisputable Wiki rules. I have no intention of fighting over this.

@Arjayay and EEng: As to the alliteration, it's definitely the best thing that came out of this whole matter :)) Arminden (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently Arminden appreciates astounding alliteration. EEng 18:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look what I found: A famous Maltese sculptor, and it's of course about our friend Pietro Paolo Azzopardo (1791-1875). Full of superlatives and pride. With 400k inhabitants and a diaspora of something over 300k people, I bet they're having a hard time producing sufficient Wiki editors as to write all the articles they consider worthwhile publishing. Arminden (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor EEng: Every English ear enjoys extraordinary expressions. Every English ear?! Every ear! Arminden (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidently. EEng 20:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Arminden. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

05:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

	Hello Arminden. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place ((Resolved|1=~~~~)) at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((helpdeskreply)) template.

Hi Arminden, I gave a response to your question about the map of the kingdom of chalcis on my user talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia (here). Because your question dates from several months back - I haven't been able to be on much lately - I thought it was a good idea to bring it to your attention here. (Please let us continue the conversation on my talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia.) —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC) not really autosigned; so I'm adding it: Machaerus (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((Redirect category shell)) should only be applied to a redirect empty if "you want to learn how to categorize redirects. For editors who want to learn how to categorize redirects, this template is a learning tool. Only those editors who intend to return to the redirect to learn which rcats to use should apply this template without parameters."

This talk page is becoming very long. Consider archiving inactive discussions.

— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Godsy: hi. I have no idea what you're talking about. What "Redirect category shell"? I'm not technically interested beyond a minimum that allows me to edit, mainly history- and geography-related articles. I don't appreciate receiving automatic bot messages. Have a nice day, Arminden (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You placed an empty ((redirect category shell)) on at least 9 of the redirect pages you recently created, i.e. Abigail, Mount Hebron, Hebron hills, Hever Stream, Khirbet Ma'in, Mount of Olives Jewish cemetery, Nira Stone, Nisan Bak Synagogue, PEF rock, and South Hebron Hills, which together comprise half of the items within the maintenance category CAT:MISCR. When that list potentially gets unintentionally flooded, individuals who actually want to learn about redirect categorization experience much higher wait times before they receive guidance. That aside, I am not a bot and my message was not sent nor compiled by one. Best regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Godsy: hi, and thank you for your reply. You sound nothing like a bot. The first message kind of did, that's where my first reply came from. I've only started to use redirects and have went to the Teahouse to ask for advice. As I mentioned, I'm not technically ambitious, I wrote that there too, but still, some of the very kind advice I got there, as well as your very nice & personalised reply, went a few leagues above my deeply submersed head. I have piles of things to read in areas I'm really interested in (of which WP is also likely to profit), plus a real-world life, so when it comes to technical advice I'm always asking for pre-chewed, installation wizard-type instructions. After all, WP is a group enterprise: I'm doing my bit, and everyone else is welcome to add nuances and the required fine-tuning. This doesn't mean that I'm OK with making mistakes. And the advice I've got seemed to say that I need to add "Redirect category shell" to the one-liner "#REDIRECT (name of existing article)". (These are my notes I'm reproducing here. I took notes and I'm going back to them when I'm using a piece of code, or template or whatever it's called, that I need). I couldn't figure out why the "shell" thing is needed, so I got suspicious and only used it in the beginning, but then gave up on it. It seems that I should forget about it altogether. Btw, I'm as little familiar with what that means as I'm with the "CAT:MISCR" you're mentioning. So "#REDIRECT (name of existing article)" and finito. Got it, thanks for taking away my last doubt. Do you think you've managed to eliminate all the cases where I've mistakenly used that "shell" thing? Or shall I go and look for more? Sorry for the fully unintended mistake, and thank you for tiding up after me and for your advice. Best regards, Arminden (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The function of the shell template is explained well at WP:REDCAT. Any other cases where the shell was applied empty would show up in CAT:MISCR, thus no further action is needed in that regard and I appreciate what you did already. No worries or apologies necessary, I only started this discussion here to prevent the potential problem from proliferating any further. On an aside, I would be happy to help if you would like assistance setting up an archive system for your talk page (to preserve old discussions on talk subpages and make the page easier to navigate & load) or have any other questions about technical matters. Warmest regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 12:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: sorry, I think I found the official page. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that you were trying to have fun while reverting a pathetic hate-filled person, but don't you think that your edit summary might have been a little excessive, especially when viewed out of context? It's a feature of Wikimedia software that many things can be edited, but the summaries of past edits cannot be, so you'll have to live with them indefinitely... AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnonMoos, hi and thank you. You have shown to have all the delicacy and diplomacy I have opted out of in that edit summary, by writing to me in the first place, and then by the way you chose your words. I thank you for that. In a less locked-down context I would most likely have done differently, and maybe there's a bit of a hidden wish to be blocked out of what has become a dependance and compulsion. As for the disgusting, anonymous creature behind the edits I have reverted - I only regret maybe giving him the satisfaction of becoming personal. In real life one can hope for enlightenment, reeducation, etc., but in the anonymity of the online world, the trolls & their ilk are Scot-free. I can live with that edit summary. As you might have noticed, I didn't remove a comment on this talk-page called "Your hostility and bigotry are showing, Arminden" (2015) because I still stand behind my answer from back then, although today I would have held back with the comment that provoked it, and altogether with much more than I did back then. Today was out of the ordinary. Anyway, sarcasm is the one thing left before desperation, and it is a form of humour; and humour is the best medicine and last resort when no real remedy is left. Thanks again, and have a great day. Arminden (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never known my friend Arminden to 'loose the thread'. He's a highly focused guy. So, this seams like needling. I'm sure things can be patched up. Someone needs to make amends. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you add sources to this content? I'm sure there are plenty of books dealing with this, but I'm not familiar with the topic.--80.246.140.72 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@80.246.140.72: Hi. Thank you for your confidence, but I don't have any books on the topic, so anyone can do it by researching online. I'll try, but can't promise, sorry. Arminden (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arminden, just to let you know that, although I've reverted your recent edits under the WP:BRD rule, I've reinstated most of them in good faith as they weren't linked to the title issue and I actually agree that they improve the article. Bermicourt (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I declined the speedy deletion of Yarmuk River to make way for the move because both forms are frequently used in English-language sources and so the move is not uncontroversial. Please use WP:RM instead. Fences&Windows 23:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We generally don't disambiguate things unless we need to. There is no other target for Khan al-Ahmar so it should not be disambiguated with (village). nableezy - 04:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nableezy:, hi. I hope you don't mind if I move this to the actual talk-page for this topic. Thanks and see you there. Arminden (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yeah i saw your comment there, made a brief reply. thanks, nableezy - 04:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Arminden,

You put a CSD tag on this page stating you had a disambiguation page to move there but you didn't link to the page you wanted to move. Please provide a link to the disambiguation page that you want moved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​Liz, hi and thank you! It's all, discussion + material for new disamb. page, at Talk:Khan al-Ahmar (village)#Added "(village)" to the name. I am not well-skilled in background technical issues, did my best, maybe CSD isn't the right tag, but I only know about 2 or 3 options and this one came closest.

The new "Khan al-Ahmar" disambiguation page still needs to be created - as written, it's fully ready to go, but I cannot create it until the redirect (Khan al-Ahmar leading to Khan al-Ahmar (village)), is removed. Can you please help with that? I've tried at Teahouse too (here), with no luck yet. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Arminden. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Lightbluerain❄ (Talk. (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).

There is a discussion on Talk:Revelry of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai which I think you may be interested in seeing.Davidbena (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidbena: hi. Thanks, let's see, I wonder if I actually do have an opinion on it :) Arminden (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Armiden, I appreciate all of the hard work that you have put into understanding the etymology and usage of Rabat (and related words), but the fact remains that DAB pages are simply navigation pages for existing information, Like the index of a book, DAB pages shouldn't contain content that isn't first presented in an article. If you're too busy to write articles, you could edit the Rabat/rabat Wiktionary pages and direct readers there until an article is written. In the meantime, I've added a link to Arabat Fortress which includes the word origin. Leschnei (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Leschnei. It might be a good idea, I have never edited on Wiktionary. I'm not so fond of it, maybe that's why. Not sure users like to click around either. Anyway, you hit the nail on its head, but probably not from the direction you intended: "like the index of a book" - well, the book (WP article) isn't there yet, but the DAB page is, and there is no divine law that says ""Thou shall never put information on the DAB page!" So spake He, listened to His own words, and found them good and unshakable." I can't understand for the life of me what bothers you when you see half a line of useful info at the head of the DAB page. It's beyond me. WP isn't an obstacle race where one has to navigate the holy gates, strangled by a straitjacket. It never was intended to work like that, nor does it make any sense to approach it like this. The WP guidelines explicitly stress it: make WP better for the user, and all the rest is secondary. We make the guidelines, not the other way 'round. Rules are something else: don't vandalise, respect your fellow editors, don't be sloppy and disruptive. But that's common sense. An encyclopedia is about offering information in the most useful and user-friendly way possible. That requires study, understanding, synthesis, and bringing it over in a concise & articulate way. The rest is chess, slalom, yo-yo, and other unrelated sports & games. But so what, crusades & Don Quixote are out of fashion. Even in mathematics, one can solve a problem in an elegant way, win the olympiad and be called a mathematician; or learn by heart the algorithm taught by Miss Teacher and pass the test with 100 points, and that's that. We can all learn from each other, mainly how to make the articles better for the user. Respecting every obscure guideline - no, I don't see the benefit. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC) PS: I don't know yet how the root r-b-t first gave the meanings "great" (see title of goddess in Ugarit), then the meaning "royal city" or "capital", "fortified city" (see Rabbat Amon/Moab), and later in Arabic "suburb". Or maybe it's r-b-b-t and r-b-t, which fully disconnects the two? I can of course see a possible logical chain of steps, but that's not knowing, and I couldn't find the missing links in online sources. That's something essential and still missing in the article. Popular etymologies are dangerous, as are poor sources. If you found something reliable on that, I would more than welcome it. Don't want to feel like I'm just collecting material, like those poor devils posting thousands of Iranian hamlets and clogging English WP with an avalanche of useless stubs. On the other hand, one learns how many places there are named after ribats and qalats, so maybe it's not totally useless. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to myself: see here for my view on this topic. Arminden (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! EpicPupper (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EpicPupper (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You got your deletion.©Geni (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geni, thank you! Arminden (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with many things you write. They bring up strong empathies and sympathies in my mind. I just wanted to say that I completely agreed with you when you wrote "I hated "Schindler's List" because of its shallowness...," and the remainder of your paragraph there. It was all a good read for me. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

warshy, thank you, I'm just conscious that Wikipedia isn't the place to let it out. Nishidani is an exception in several ways, but with others I've lost any semblance of coolness, and probably civility too. I need to move on. There's a way people tend to play and tease with what's not really their right to do so. There is so much to do about tribal blindness among Israelis, Palestinians, and the rest of the Middle East. Pushing the one or the other into the corner, siding with whoever touches the strings of one's soul without understanding that it's not about applauding during a theatre play, but about life and death in the end, that does upset me and I'm letting it out in words, because there are no deeds at my disposal. You can try to educate and open eyes, but fully delegitimising "the other" is both mean – and stupid, because it's counterproductive. Pretending that placing the depopulated former Palestinian village in the lead of every article about any Israeli town or village, and posting an old map with the Arab names more prominently than any picture or information about the Israeli place as such, is the exact mirror image of Israelis obliterating and ignoring any memory of Arab presence. That's not how it's done. Inform and educate, most definitely; but people on all sides need to be allowed to live in a decent way, and you don't ever reach that by calling everybody a thief and erasing their pride in anything they've achieved. I'm wishing everybody well, and while contact is good and a must, as it opens one's eyes, a healthy distance should be possible for those who really don't belong together. But I'm back to writing while I was trying do do something else too. Still, I'm happy you wrote, and your discrete presence in the background has been encouraging and brought up a smile every time you've tapped me. Take care Warshy. Arminden (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The most baffling part of it for me is that there seems to be no viable solution, no solution at all, actually. But your writing does help make the problem more acute, more sensible, all around. In the absence of better hope, that is at least something... You take care too, and I hope you do get soon to all the other stuff you need to do, besides writing. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regrets for not answering sooner - a few distractions in play the past while. However, in general you can (usually) get some documentation for a template by looking at its template page (usually Template: followed by the template name)- Thus ((COI)) (or Template:COI) includes the description on the purpose and usage of the Conflict of Interest banner. Same goes with other templates you may be interested in e.g. ((No footnotes)). Some are visible banners, often requests for cleanup or action; others are ongoing markers rather than cleanup, such as ((EngvarB)). Hope this leads to the info you are interested in. Dl2000 (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dl2000: hi. Thank you very much for writing back, but could it be that there's some confusion at play? I had asked about the meaning and benefit of placing "use my dates" above an articleTemplate:use my dates doesn't seem to lead anywhere. . I'm technically not well-versed, nor very interested, but I saw it so many times and don't know anything about it. Sorry... Arminden (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?, and undo this; thanks, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't care about those tonnes of blabla. I won't revert whatever you do. Enjoy your crusade. Arminden (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh, I am really not on a crusade (and I really don't think it is very nice of you to say so), But heck: this is wikipedia and "rules are rules" -whether we like them or not. Please revert, or risk finding yourself at WP:AE, Huldra (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huldra:, I've written quite clearly: you can do as you like, I'm out of there, it's all yours. I've removed the star from that article, not getting any more notice when it's being changed. Arminden (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arminden, it took me a while to get started, but there is now an article on the Syrian Arc. It's still very much work in progress as I get my head around the large number of papers on the subject.

One question, I've mentioned that it runs through Israel/Palestine, but only linked Israel. Is there a link for Palestine that I could use without leading to potential conflict? Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mike, hi and thanks for letting me know. Yes, you're so right! A can of worms. I'm trying to get Wiki-"clean" lately, not least because of this. Try "West Bank" (I guess Gaza/the coast is too far west to be much affected), or [[Palestine (region)|Palestine]]. Somebody will always change it to "State of Palestine" (I wish there were one, but it ain't, so it's wishful thinking and factually wrong), others will change it back and so on. But don't let it bother you, concentrate on the geology. Maybe they won't find the page, except maybe because of our dialogue here :) Good luck and thanks again, I'm hurrying now to read your article. Arminden (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. See if you agree (region = actually both, Pal. Territories + Isr., but OK...). Arminden (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the improvements! Mikenorton (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anyone tampers with Palestine (region)|Palestine revert them.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A) Listen to Nishi, he knows his business. B) Quite the contrary, thank _you_! Arminden (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I saw your post from last year about the 55th week of the year and the discrepancy between weeks and available sedrot. With this year being a leap year, it puzzled me. The answer is that because of Jewish holidays and Chol Hamoed falling on Shabbat, there will always be enough sedrot available to complete the year's cycle without the need to add an extra one. Have a look at Yom Tov Torah readings. EhsanQ ^(talk) 11:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. I will be looking at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 AUGUST 2021!

Thanks so much,

Sarabnas (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, I have noted your positive contributions in Wikipedia articles, and you have even tried to improve the article City of David. Have you seen that article lately? See, for example, Talk:City of David#Recent editing. Do you think that the article is being accurately portrayed historically? How would you suggest that we improve the article?Davidbena (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidbena: hi David. Honestly, I've lost interest and I hope not to change my mind in the future. This is a working place, and an unpaid one. Even one on which your whole livelyhood depends, you tend to leave if it becomes unbearable. Here it's toxic, through and through. It's a nasty battlefield, and not of the minds. The article, as it is, is hardly deserving to be left online. Hacked, messy, like Waterloo after the battle: a participant knows every explosion crater and torn tree in the area he's been in, but a visitor only gets the impression of a pockmarked landscape. What does a user need? Who comes here? This should be the only motivational questions an editor should keep in mind - this, and the BIG PICTURE. Instead it's war on all levels, small-minded and on tiny units. One could have a separation: a list of things you can see there, with a glossary for the terms used (SE hill = CoD, Tyropoeon = Central Valley, etc.); a mainstream way of interpreting the lot; other particular interpretations; and clearly, a presentation of the ideological & political powers at work, which influence (and complicate) everything a lot. But not constantly and repetitively and small-mindedly and aggressively and idiotically intertwined to the point where it all becomes useless to any presumed user. As it is now. Not a battle I want to be in anymore. Sorry. Arminden (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden's summary captures indeed the state of things, David. While it is undoubtedly true that the ìtoxicity' reflects clashes in editorial bias, or the difference in their respective points of departure (reflecting the tensions of the I/P conflict), the core issue is not here, but in the nature of the riven antagonisms present in the scholarly interpretation of that period. You will have both read the Haaretz article today. My eye caught the following in particular:-

There have been screaming matches at conferences and now, in the academic equivalent of pistols at dawn, volleys of arguments are being exchanged in scholarly journals, with the latest article by Ben-Yosef being published earlier in July (Ariel David King David a Nomad? New Theory Sparks Storm Among Israeli Archaeologists Haaretz 26 July 2021)

It is not wikipedians' bad faith at the root of this kind of hodgypodgy mishmash we have in articles like that, as much as the fact that editors end to sieve the alluvium of riven controversies within Israel and abroad among members of the relevant academic community, and pick and choose from the disiecta membra of papers, esp. reports on them, to consolidate one POV or undermine the other.

So even if we just detached ourselves, mastered the archaeological record and, as would be desirable, agreed to write a minimalist account of what the material evidence states about that period, we would still have a tension between the hermeneutics of the two camps in RS, the 'religious-confirmatory' and 'secular-sceptical' schools. At the moment editing is just prinking and preening the corpse. The only positive way through would be to outline on that talkpage a structure for rewriting from top to bottom - with the sparse ashlar masonry of the most modern archaeological findings re the site. But on Wikipedia this never happens. Alas.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Arminden has expressed in such exemplary terms the difficulties in editing when different "ideological forces" are at play. It's frustrating, at times, and it can wear a person out. I understand his sentiments. @Nishidani:, your suggestion is also a good one. Perhaps you can help out in that area. I have no problem whatsoever about mentioning "a mainstream way of interpreting the lot," as well as mentioning "other particular interpretations," so long as we give due weight to the mainstream view.Davidbena (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I can't help. At a certain point one has to measure what time one has against the maelstrom of time-sinks, and navigate in quieter waters. In any case, for me the deep past is a congeries of hypotheses and just-so stories, and should be written as such, even when, over 80 articles you have the United monarchy meme when there is no evidence for such a thing. Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani: hi. I couldn't agree more - to this last posting more than to the previous. David and you have lured me out of my hermit's corner after quite a while of staying away. I've been weak lately altogether at letting the old habit take over again, but at least not by wading through the I/P can of worms. To the first posting I agree less because the archaeologists' theories can be presented one underneath the other, but the screams of "politically correct" activists adding to each term or statement a preamble and postscript longer than a UN resolution's, truly make the lecture unbearable - which, I am fully convinced, often is the very purpose of their editing. Allergy, you can call it (theirs, I mean), and a worse case than the medical variant. Antihistamines don't help, and desensitisation is refused as "normalisation". I'm not talking in general, just look again at the CoD article: repetition over repetition, just to make sure that any user who only reads one paragraph will still know "how much we disagree", from the ground up, roots, stem and all.

ElAd/CoD as an organisation is as disgusting as your next propagandist, who's lying in your face and knowingly distorting information. And ultimately destroying lives, not just people's trust in reason and any kind of "authorities". But they're not alone. Arrogant Palestinian village kids kicking passersby's dogs ('cause what's a dog other than a means to the goal, and a dirty one at that?), hateful activists of every shade making anything resembling normalcy impossible - that place is nasty. And it reflects in the "article". Archaeologically it's an amazing place, everyone should be happy to see what lies underneath, and if in a parallel universe ideology & politics could be held out of it, the Palestinians should (and I hope they would, but hard to know) love to participate in digging it out, as should anyone who asked himself a theoretical question. In any normal country there are ways to pursue major projects, including by resettling a few households. There is no long history of living on that ridge in recent times. I'd have zero problem with the UN taking over, the UNESCO leading the digs, the few families living in the houses which stand on top of this treasure trove being offered alternative housing wherever they want, and the digs taking the normal scientific form, from the surface towards the living rock, and not through tunnels. The results could bring jobs to the neighbourhood (if tourists do ever come back), all eras being treated with the same concern, and that's that. But it's more likely for Jesus or some cousin of his having their 1st or 2nd coming tomorrow with the 5:30 bus from Tel Aviv, Bethlehem or Hebron, than anything remotely close to that happening. And the article will look accordingly.

I don't care if David was there, if Solomon existed, if the fortress only protected the spring or if it was indeed the walled city of Jebus and later of David: curiosity might have killed the cat, but it's one of the better traits we have. Neither religions, nor someone's rights do depend on who exactly dug a hole or raised a wall centuries or millennia ago in this place or that. If they indeed do, they're not worth the effort. Neither is it for me fighting these disingenuous WP wars. If I'll need the information in a concise manner and always available, that might motivate me do do something - or to finally switch from desktop to laptop and always have my own files with me. But doing that earlier would have stopped me from getting to know you, and to be forced to adapt my views to other people's, which - to a point! - is a good thing. So here on WP as anywhere else, the "militants" are destroying something good and valuable. (Btw, what do you think of the BBC reporting that in Tokio they held a minute of silence for the Munich attack in which Israeli athletes "were killed by gunmen"? What ever happened to the word "terrorist"? If that's what conforming to PC rules means, f-u-c-k i-t, and if WP goes the same way, may it go the way of the dodo.)

"The user" I keep on invoking is such a passive mass! There's no revolt of those looking up this presumed article, the talk page should be chock full of "letters to the editors" full of expletives. But it's always the same ole' suspects, with the same ole' biases and fix ideas. So, who are we spending all this time & energy on? Is it just about all of us editors being from Al Bundy's wife's family? (That's me trying not to get X-rated). Unpleasant thought, but impossible to chase away. Arminden (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want to drag you back into those articles, rest assured, precisely because you are one of the best editors we have there, and you need to stay clear of timesinks and just occasionally dump what you know in one or two selected articles. Yes, those men at Munich were terrorists, not a shadow of a doubt. I strongly disagreed, and continue to do so, with the 2012 Olympics one minute of silence campaign as the talk pages will show, while knowing that the plaintiff would win through sometime in the future as they have. I regard most army men who are recruited as snipers in non-defensive wars as murderers, indeed terrorists enjoying one of the perks, as 'natural born killers' (about 5% of any army), of giving vent to their pleasure in killing people under an official and unimputable state warrant as opposed to our usual designation of terrorists as violent non-state 'actors'. I think in fact that it is probably easier to penetrate into the mind of those political terrorists than into the minds of official murderers. I regard many respectable and, on the face of it, decent people, as murderers (When the 2014 'reforms' on heating subsidies and national health went through in England under Cameron, I think the 2016 statistics showed that over the Ist year of their implementation, the expected annual figures for dying jumped up with an extra 15,000 above the expected average, and some sociological analysis at the time suggested the leap in deaths among the age was a direct consequence of those reforms, ergo . . .) But, let's not stray there. These are very stressful times and from whatever angle, have very little to recommend for themselves since the default principle is 'who's side are you on'. My best friend (now deceased) once said to me: 'if the (Italian) Communist Party comes to power (he voted for it, for solid family reasons connected to the fascist period) I'll have no option but to become a militant member of the opposition,' and I think I can recall Kafka noting he was his own best or worst adversary. Late here. Must catch up with the Olympic late night roundup. Keep well and look after yourself, mate. Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arminden: and @Nishidani:, if either one of you should need any encouragement and/or motivation to work only on the lead paragraph, I think you have the authority to do so by this Administrator. See her remarks here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@37.142.172.72: hi, no problem. I've replied on the History of Palestine talk-page. Hope you see this. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI Sarabnas is a her not a him. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good for you ;) Arminden (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it appears that you tried to create a redirect at Zacharias (given name), but didn't do it correctly. I've fixed it now. For future reference, the correct redirect syntax is:

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]

You can check redirects with the Preview button before saving them. If you have created a working redirect, the preview will show the name of the target page alongside a bent arrow (or "Redirect to:" label in text mode). — Smjg (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smjg: Hi, and thanks for the correction. I am well aware of the redirect template and the preview option, it was just a typo and work done in a hurry. Thank you for fixing it and for drawing my attention! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, A. I'm guessing that what is transcribed as 'keida' is Calicotome villosa/spiny broom, and even glossing that looks like WP:OR. Still devilish details like that leave me sleepless. Can you provide me with a soporific illumination without you too losing any sleep? Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani: Hey back, and thanks for your trust, but I'm not good at anything relating to plants or Hebrew. If you're asking if spiny broom is 'keida' in Hebrew: wildflowers.co.il has קידה שעירה, "hairy bow" (says Google), and Steven Morse offers KIDH SHAIRH, KIDH SAIRH. So 'keida[h]' might come close. I've googled for 'קידה' (images), and it almost only comes up together with 'שעירה', and all pictures are then of the thorny broom in full bloom. Sorry, I wish I could be of more help every now or then. Arminden (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the bother, pal. 'Trust'? Was that ever in doubt? I know I must come across as intensely annoying at times, but I know an encyclopedic mind when I see one, and in particular one who works overtime to shovel through the overburden of chat to grapple with core facts which is what we're supposed to do here. Anybody passionate about Wikipedia needs tough corrective competition from co-editors whose record of hard work proves their high seriousness and their subsidiary function of jolting one out of either complacency or ignorance. Well, this one is undetermined then. Somewhere along the way, an answer will crop up. Patience. Stay well in these crazy times. Best Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, shalom. I see that you have reverted the Category:Palestinologists from the article Gustaf Dalman. I do not know why you insist on deleting this category from his page, since I can think of no other person who best suits the description of a "Palestinologist." Gustaf Dalman worked many long years in Palestine, and served as the chief editor of the academic journal Palästina-Jahrbuch. He has also written extensively about Palestine in other prominent works, besides having authored a seven-volume book entitled "Work and Customs in Palestine," which you are able to Google for more details. He also wrote on the historical, geographical, cultural and agricultural aspects of the country Palestine. Are you saying that geographical reasearch on Palestine does not belong here? For your information, this is how "Palestinologist" is defined in Wiki (see here). Also on the Category:Palestinologists itself, we find the term defined, as you can see here. Therefore, I am at a loss as to your insistence to continually remove the category. Am I missing something? If you'd like, you can put up a RfC (Request for Comment) to get the broader feedback from the community. As it is, I will restore the current category, unless you can show me otherwise that it does not belong in that particular article.Davidbena (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@David:, hi. Did you read anything I have written here? Arminden (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden, I have not read anything here about the subject, but I have read your notes on the Ubeidiya, West Bank Talk-Page and have addressed your statements there.Davidbena (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I mean there, sorry. Because a Geman expression comes to mind, aneinander vorbeireden, more or less "talking past each other", a bit like after the confusion of languages at Babel. Sorry my friend, but that's how I'm feeling. Looking forward to working with you again, Arminden (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arminden. I am not allowed to edit page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians, but there is a rather silly typo that needs correcting: in chapter DNA and genetic studies, third paragraph, "According to a study published in June 2017 by Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, and Eran Elhaik in Frontiers in Genetics, "in a principle component analysis (PCA)..." should be corrected to principal... Can you correct this or otherwise explain to me how to do it / whom to contact? Regards. PaoloDM (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Also payback for keida labours on my behalf.:)Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani: Mille grazie! Now I can start singing "Now that I'm a rich man". Arminden (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No absolutely not. I, as the swindler in the exchange, will take you to arbitration if you steal my right to that lyric. Time is money. My edit took 2 seconds, your search re that spiny plant perhaps a half an hour. Customers disgruntled by my extortions can, I guess sing this in protest while looking west, preferably at sundown when the noise of folks batting the breeze in my Italian pub will guarantee I can't hear it and suffer remorse. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your right to that lyric?! Convergence, or subliminal memory cheating me into believing I made it up...? Anyway, buon appetito! Or is it saluti, considering that blood is liquid when fresh? Arminden (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - you wrote most of the unsourced material (or rather material using only primary sources} here. I was thinking of removing it until I used "Who wrote this" and saw it was you. Any chance you could fix it? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: hi. Thanks for writing me about it. I have slightly more time now than I had back then, so yes, sure, I'll go back to it.

Btw, I didn't know there's a "Who wrote this" function. I'm looking through the edit history when needed, and it takes ages, so I'd be very grateful to you if you could sent me a short "how to do it". Thanks again, Arminden (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, it's "Who wrote that" and it's a browser extension for Chrome or Firefox, puts a link on the left-hand side of an article page. mediawikiwiki:Who Wrote That?. It's very useful. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: Sure it's useful! Thanks a lot, you're saving me a lot of time. Arminden (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Arminden. There is currently a discussion on whether or nor King's Garden (Jerusalem) should be merged with Silwan. Can you please interject your opinion there?--Davidbena (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dorcas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judah.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above doesn't contribute anything to the discussion @In ictu oculi: hi. Sorry, but did you read anything on this page? Or is "Why are we even having this RM?" your only argument? Because "in a Greek book" can only be a joke. Was it Asterix at the Olympic Games in Greek? Joke aside: did you look up any other Greek book, say, the Septuagint? Or any Greek Orthodox source? I guess not. Start the easy way: look up this article, "Dorcas" for now, at Greek Wiki. You end up here: Αγία Ταβιθά. Αγία Ταβιθά is Saint Tabitha. No Dorkas (with a k in Greek) anywhere in sight in the title, not even in brackets. Dorkas only comes up after the Aramaic, טביתא. Or, as easy: go to orthodoxwiki.org. Search for "Dorcas". Nothing. Surprised? Then "Tabitha". 3 hits! Vestments and Church Supplies with a Tabitha of Joppa Vestments, Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem with "the tomb of St. Tabitha" (in a monastery in Jaffa), and Baptismal names for Orthodox Christians, with - no, no Dorcas/Dorkas, just "Tabitha (f) - St. Tabitha (October 25 - Saint)". Me, as a good Romanian, went to look up www.crestinortodox.ro too. 3 articles mentioning "Tabita" ('Tabita din Iope' in full), and none for Dorcas. You said Greek, not Greek Orthodox in other languages, sorry. So let's Google around for Orthodox sites in Greek: "Ταβιθά" "Ιόππη", and "Ταβιθα" "Ιόππη" (the accent on the α seems to be optional). Ταβιθά or Ταβιθα is the name of the saint everywhere on websites with understandable names like orthodoxoiorizontes.gr ("Agia Tabitha"), orthodoxia.info ("I Tabitha..."), orthodoxianewsagency.gr ("i Agia Tavitha"), or even iellada.gr ("Agia Tavitha"). Try "Δορκάς" "Ιόππη". You get lots of Tabitha, with Dorkas as an explanation following behind it. Why add Joppa? Because I don't want to get hits on gazelles. I guess in Greek there is indeed no need even starting the slightest discussion. But this is English Wiki, and you haven't said a word about the use in English. Arminden (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please don't assume that other editors are imbeciles. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't assume anything. I don't know anything about you beyond what you wrote, and I answered directly to that. Arminden (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The algorithm that Google Books uses to decide what pages to show is a mystery and it is not deterministic. What one person can see, another cannot. What you can't see today, tomorrow perhaps you can. I suspect (without proof) that it knows how much of a book you looked at in the past and uses that to decide how much to show you now. All of this means that there is no point in mentioning the visibility of a page in a citation. Zero^talk 04:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero0000 hi. Thanks. I get the impression that it is quite constant and that it is the same everywhere, judging by what people do quote or not. If there's "no preview" or "snippet preview", this must be the decision of the (c) holder and is world-wide. Where you can tweak it, is either to scroll down through the book (you often get pages refused by the search system), or change the country ending in the URL: they programme in differences. I get to see certain pages under either .de, .co.uk, .fr, whatever, which are off limits under most of the other. I have my files with copied material, and if I got stuck on p. 316 in 2014 and again now, I conclude that 317 is simply off limits permanently. But yes, I also notice changes, but I guess that's either because I figured out a new trick (if +), or because some (c) holders have fully withdrawn their permission (if -). Or so I think. Arminden (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arminden; I have often seen that people in other contries cannot see what I can see, and vice versa. Also, you can get a very different view by changing from eg. google.co/ to google.com, etc. So I agree, mentioning which page is visible (for editor Y, in country X), is really pointless, Huldra (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huldra, Zero0000, thanks to you both. I meant to exchange information; I have no way of knowing for sure. Changing the country ending (.co.il, .de, etc.) definitely often changes the pages one can access, but who knows how many variables they programmed into their algorithms.

Do you think it goes that far as varying on the basic level of access? G.B. marks each title or edition with "limited preview", "snippet view" or "no preview". I guess that's the same everywhere, dictated by the (c) holder. Arminden (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Often the same book has many different versions uploaded, with different access(!) Look at my User:Huldra/Sources-page, where I (tried!) to collect the different Sharon CIAP-books. Typically one or two has only snippet, while one has preview. It is rather boring (but needed) work to find all the variants, and choose the best, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think to remember that there was a GB change of access policy after publishers sued them, and the access rate dropped at once. Do you remember that too? Arminden (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Good Old Days^® Google's algorithm for page views varied much more between national versions, and from day to day seemingly at random. Some enterprising soul created a web site where you could order books. The site visited all the Google Books sites several times a day checking for what was available and gradually compiling the complete book page by page. Usually it took 1-2 weeks for it to collect everything but a handful of pages. Unsurprisingly, Google had it shut down and soon changed its algorithm to make such harvesting impractical. The current algorithm is presumably a trade secret. Zero^talk 00:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, that is the answer to the "did it change" question! Thanks Zero0000. Now what the "new" algorithm actually does, whether my presumptions are correct or wrong - that's either known to people who've done a thorough study over X countries, or it's not, and I won't make it my life's mission to start one. Mainly: do I see, when I use for instance the ending .it, exactly what anyone searching from Italy would? And does the fact that, over time, I'm repeatedly getting some specific pages and some I never do, mean that that's the case always and everywhere? Rhetorical questions, because I won't start looking for forums discussing it (20 participants from 20 countries, or even 10 well chosen ones, staying on the target for 2-3 years, would deliver the answer; and Google would listen in and change the algorithm if it wished to). But I'll still have my thoughts and draw conclusions from what I notice. Arminden (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I see a page that is important, I take a screenshot as I can't be sure I'll be able to see it again. This has happened to me many times. Zero^talk 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Z. Guess what: I've been saving dozens of such screenshots for years now :)) I'm now using Print to separate the actual text from the useless bits around it. There's a way to scan the text and make it fully accessible, but it would be too much trouble for me even if the text didn't get badly scrambled. Arminden (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:St Michael Church Cluj with demolished Baroque tower C18.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:St Michael Church Cluj with demolished Baroque tower C18.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|cc-by-sa-4.0)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:St Michael Church Cluj Baroque outer gate 19thC.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:St Michael Church Cluj Baroque outer gate 19thC.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|cc-by-sa-4.0)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did finally get a copy of Crusader Landscapes, papers dedicated to Denys Pringle, and it is well worth the $85. Very much related to some of the stuff I'm working on now and, of course, Crusader castles. And erenow.net is now working on my computer! No more going to the library to look up a web address (I have the encyclopedia in pdf).Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Grampinator, hi. Great for you! Now if I'm stuck with no online source to quote, I'll know whom to ask for help ;) Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karak.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have violated the 1rr at Caesarea Philippi, please self revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, actually Arminden can't revert it, because I eliminated the disputed cat. So we can drop the fussing. Arminden, your knowledge of the ground is always a lesson to other editors, no one disputes that. But as Nableezy says, there are rules here and your impatience with finicky procedures mirrors mine by the way, and can get you into needless trouble. I generally ignore them, which is easy because I don't inform myself about them. But if alerted I revert if at fault. I reverted not only because Nableezy is a technician in these tedious but implacably necessary guidelines, and when he makes a call, everyone needs to stop and take note. Not flawless, but authoritatively canny. But this one was also, as far as I can grasp the conversation on that page, straightforward. We should never classify, whatever that country decides in its own narrative world, 'national parks of Israel' areas that are under occupation and therefore in international law not part of Israel. To do so is to assert discursive sovereignty and preempt the lay of the law. That is standard on wiki. Just make a mental note to tell me to get fucked on reading this, by all means, but be more careful in the future. Not all disputes here are matters of POV activists preaching a cause. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template is still in the article, so he can self revert that at least. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nishidani, hi. I had actually logged out, I don't know how come that I still got emailed. Thank you so much as always for your friendship and care, but I will really try to stay away for as long as I can. I was only thinking to contact you again about your email, so we don't need to be disconnected once I'm off. I can't stand the mix between lack of grasp & logic and unrelenting insistence. And formal correctness coupled with lack of substance. I truly can't, it's not some affectation. The matter has no merit whatsoever, but it is beyond silly. You didn't get the gist of it in your cursory look at the page. I easily get what you wrote. The crack is twofold, both regarding comprehension.

Matter No. 1 is the difference between two topics: A), lack of sources (solved); B), a clear case of "moving the goal posts", leading to a matter of elementary school set theory: that if set A is included in set B, a smaller subset C of A is also included in set B. Nableezy insisted in allowing the wider Hermon/Banias National Park to be tagged as an Israeli national park (so that's where your analysis doesn't work), even had no qualms about Caesarea Philippi (CP) having a link to the official website of that park under External links (!), but he (and only him) fought teeth & claws against adding the category Israeli national park to Caesarea Philippi on formal grounds, so nothing to do with occupation.

Matter No. 2 is a separate facet of that: CP is not a site, it's a period; the site is Banias, which was at different times called Paneas, CP, Neronias, Banias; so he insisted on separating a TEMPORARY subset from a compact, relatively small SPACIAL site. He was fine with the SITE being connected to the incriminated category, but not the temporal subset: either the one, or the other, both can't have the category, as he put it. That I can't even qualify in logical terms. CP is history + a heap of ruins, reworked into & intertwined with older and younger ones, all over a smallish area, all in the same national park, which is a form of administration, under (genocidal apartheid murderous criminal satanical baleful sideral) occupation (never my point of contention, and allegedly his either), acknowledged and not rejected by him. All you can - logically - attempt to do, is to take the immaterial part - history - out of the national park connection, since the material part - ruins - you can't; but that is never done. Once some ruins have a known history, that history becomes part the site; and the site is uncontestedly part of a national park. Unlike, say, biblical toponyms where there is no corresponding identified tell, at least not a consensual one: there you have an immaterial part and no material one, so you have to separate the name from non-consensual sites/tells. Here you are, me being also my own devil's advocate. But I hate playing both sides in a dispute, I never much liked playing chess against myself.

You have the inverse problem with Emmaus and Bethsaida for instance, where there is more than one strong candidate, and they are all dealt with on the same page, with separate articles branching off for the individual sites; logical and clean. Or you have a similar situation at Capernaum, where a wider Kfar Nahum (Capernaum) National Park exists, leading to both a link and the category being added, although and in spite of the fact that it's the Franciscans who actually run the site and the N.P. authority has no say there. Or the Yosemite N.P., a case brought up by Nableezy but misunderstood by him, where each feature that has a Wiki article of its own is part of a sub-category of Yosemite N.P., which is itself part of the categ. US Nat'l Parks (Wiki sees that as "staying under the umbrella" of the wider category). Russian dolls, nice & clean. Logic meeting practice. But I guess the Ahwahnechee are less activistic on Wiki and don't fight logic & reality on this platform.

All that, taken together, is beyond cursory missing a logical point, which can happen, that is proof of either limited comprehension of basic matters of logic, or activism that goes beyond one's own better sense. Either way, it's infuriating to any thinking person. In itself not worth more than a smile, but in conjunction with the amounts of time I'm wasting on Wiki and the growing backlog of unsolved real life matters, it's the straw that broke the camel's back. So thanks again for your friendship and excellent intentions, but I'll try to go where Amy Winehouse famously refused to go. Lots of warm greetings and I hope, if going cold turkey works, that I'll be more available for keeping up my promises and correspondence, which I shamefully haven't. Cheers mate, Arminden (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not misunderstood by me jfc, again maybe pretend we arent dumber than you? I said to make a Category:Banias and include that in the national parks category and include this article in that category. That you did not understand that does not mean that I did not. Seriously, the level of pomposity is unreal here. You still dont get the basic issue here. But Im the one that is a moron. nableezy - 14:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There I did it for you. Maybe stop acting like you the only one that understands anything here now? You not understanding how categorization works here and insisting that the article follow you in your refusal to actually follow our policies because you alone have an understanding of the higher purpose of Wikipedia and your edits are not to be challenged since they are manifestly in keeping with that higher purpose is as ever charming but not something I particularly care for. If youre going to leave, as you threatened to do before once again edit-warring to include things that very obviously do not belong in an article, then I wish you good fortune. I personally doubt it, but guess we'll find out together. nableezy - 15:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are a descriptivist of the realist school. I by native bent (first attempt at a book aged 13 a complete history of the constituent elements of the universe, i.e. a history of the elements in the Mendeleev table; followed by an attempt to make a genealogy of the Greek gods down to their heroic offspring) start from the start, not in medias res. You and Nableezy can argue till the cows come home re wiki cats, and it is not in either case, ideological ('genocidal apartheid murderous criminal satanical baleful sideral.') It is about how to apply cats, based on wiki policy re cats or the internal comparison of cats as they have been attached to numerous articles. You share a common premise in this context.

Wiki is very much a random process of composition, in the sense that whoever visits, edits, tags does so off their own bat, according to their own lights and decades on we have some very rough coherence per guidelines but in practice, enormous variation and internal inconsistencies. You both are arguing within that framework amid the flotsam and jetsam piled up by passing editors, some contested some not, but with no internal crosspage cogency. I go back to first principles, which of course relate to a logic prior to wiki practice or policy.

• It is indisputably true that accumulated practice by Israel has led to its declaring large areas outside its frontiers but within the territory it controls 'national parks'
• This creates a semantic anomaly. 'National' means 'of or belonging to a nation(-state)'. Israel can go about renaming the occupied/unilaterally annexed territories as it likes, and ipso fact classify these as parts of Israel. But they aren't. It is one of your 'facts' that Israel has done this. It is one of the 'facts' that these locations are not in Israel, and therefore not 'national' in any other sense that a declarative rhetorical assertiveness that possession means ownership. A cat used or abused to imply that these areas are in Israel is deceptive. The only way to fix this would be to make a separate cat for 'Israeli parks outside Israel' or something like that. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, "Category:Israeli proclaimed national parks in occupied territories" should be created. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I am perplexed about ' I was only thinking to contact you again about your email.' Correct me if I am wrong. I can't ever recall sending you an email, so if there is one under my nickname be careful. Perhaps I am forgetful. But I do recall once you suggesting we might converse under that format, and deciding that it would be improper for me to initiate a conversation via that venue (intrusive). Best Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]