Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 21 October 2012

Welcome!

Hello, Nahk7, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Misplaced Pages articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Misplaced Pages also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello, I'm Saddhiyama. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Aryan that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

what is an edit summary? As I am quite a newbee here I am not familiar with editing language. Thank you for your understanding. | Kohn ] (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)]

Hi Nakh7. An edit summary is a brief explanation of your edit - why you felt something needed to be added, deleted or altered. When you make your edit, there's a window just under the place where you do the edit - not very big - with a heading over it in blue, "edit summary (briefly describe the changes you have made)". As I said, it's not very large. Here you should try to explain why you made the edit. If there's not enough room, or if you keep getting reverted, go to the Talk page and start a discussion. If you have problems with another editor (people on Misplaced Pages are often difficult and don't seem very reasonable), you can seek advice and help from an administrator. Dougweller (who has left you a message below) is a very helpful administrator, but there are many others. PiCo (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah thanks. But in general I think this is not a place for racist theories...

Thank you!

] (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)]

David

Please stop doing edits to this article (or any other) without adequate edit summaries. If you have problems with the article, discuss them on Talk, and avoid edit-wars. PiCo (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Click on WP:Edit summaries. And I think you need to go to Talk:David to explain your edits there before editing there anymore. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I wanna see that son of David come to Earth. I think we'd all be very surprised editing]]. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not frightened by you you vagabund.

Get your readings correct you pityful thing.

J. Jaman

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiledia

First of all a big thank you to the wikipedians who helped me through my first weeks on he It was great..

Misplaced Pages is as I found, a beautiful thing. But as in most things, there are those who have been here for a long time and people like myself.

I think that the truth, may it be proven by various sources and valid opinion, should not be suppressed. And I have found that a lot of truth is either neglected or not wanted or just not perceived.

I am a specialised and studied person in religious law, and as such I would like to be treated. That does not mean I am disrespectful. But I believe religion has a responsibility towards its believers. And for that you have to get your facts right and be open for new developments.

In that sense I thank all of you guys who helped me, many thanks. And all those who criticised me. This means I see no reason to appeal for now, but I will be treating of this more flexible in the future.

But I should like to make clear that I wish to have the liberty in contributing in a good and constructive manner and should like to be treated like that as well at my own discretion.

Feel free to send posts but please be aware that this is my own page and should be kept in good order and spirit.

J.Levi

When your block expires, please be mindful of our civilized standards such as not blanking any part of an editor's user page. "Edit warring" is also frowned upon; per WP:BRD talkpages should be used to discuss or justify proposed changes, if edits get reverted. And everything added must have an attributable source; wikipedia does not qualify as a source for itself because of the fact that amyone may write it. With regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Thank you. I was not aware of many of those things.

I see why you can't cite wikipedia sites.

But I think Misplaced Pages should strive to be accepted as a valuable source even if at general level.

David redux

You are still not using edit summaries. When you edit you are editing in what we call an 'edit window'. Below it is a line where you should add an edit summary explaining your edit. You are being reverted because you are removing material with no explanation - and because you've said that David's mother's name is in the Bible - if it is, then you need to name her and show where it gives her name, since other sources say it isn't. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi thanks for this.

I will see to it that I attend to this in more depthth. Thanks for the info anyway.

J

A couple points

Hi and welcome back! Aside from edit summaries as Doug Weller mentions, there are two very important things to editing here that I haven't seen you do yet:

1) Use an article talk page to justify your edits through discussion with other editors if they may be opposed. This is far preferable to "edit warring" the changes on the article itself - read WP:BRD. From the article, you can find the article talk page by clicking the "talk" tab from the top margin.

2) The information added to wikipedia should be found in a good reliable source -read WP:RS. If the source for what you are adding is only you yourself, and not found any publication, it is less likely to stand challenge, and may end up being removed as your own "original research" or personal speculation. So you always want your edits to be able to be backed up by a book saying the same thing, and it must be in direct relationship to the correct article topic.

For example, let's look at your latest changes to Jah:

(New section 'Judaism':) "In Judaism, is a description of the name or a name of God, but also a family name."

First of all, the article is only about the specific English spelling "JAH", but we have several other very closely related pages to explain forms such as Jehovah, Yahweh, and YHWH and JHVH currently both redirect to Tetragrammaton, etc.. Your edit doesn't appear to shed any light on the use of the form JAH, however. The fact that all these are from the Hebrew name of the Creator revealed to Moses according to Exodus, should be apparent from what is already in the "lede sentence", and we link the appropriate articles so students can learn the details.

The main purpose for your edits to JAH seems to have been to point out the existence of the similar Jewish surname Jachman, right? I would advise not doing this any more until you have found your source claiming that this particular name is indeed cognate. It is well known that many Hebrew names do incorporate the 'YAH', either at the end, eg 'Hezekiah' or at the beginning eg Johannon, Jehoshua. As for 'Jachman' the -man part looks to be of Germanic origin, not like Hebrew. If the name combines Hebrew JAH with German man, this would be unusual, there must be some authoritative source showing this somewhere. But because there are so many Hebrew names like Hezekiah etc. that unquestionably include forms of JAH, there should be an obvious "due weight" reason for giving any extra attention to one particular name in a separate section.

I found this on a website: Jackman, Americanized spelling of German Jachmann or Jackmann, from a Czech pet form of a name ultimately from the Biblical name Yochanam (see John) + Middle High German man ‘man’.

So I see there is a source for the etymology of the name, but it's a little more complicated that simply YHWH + mann, it also includes the hard ch from Yochanan, and several changes in spelling and pronunciation! So I'm not sure this info would belong at Jah, but it might have more potential for the articles Yohanan, John (given name) etc. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Jah

Hi Eulenspiegel,

as to your points: thank you for your valuable contributions.

As to sourcing: I can submit sources on this, of course.

As to Geneology you should do some research. It is true that Ja is part of many Jewish names but the way a name is spelled or written often denotes hierarchy specifications.

Youb know this is my hobby, so normally I don't have the time for research myself at the moment.

Thank you.

October 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Third opinion/doc

I don't know what you thought you were doing here, but you shouldn't be editing template documentation pages. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

[[== Your edits and a possible block ==

At ] you have exceeded 3RR despite the warning, and if I'd reported you you would probably have been blocked. Most of your edits elsewhere have also been reverted. What you need to do now is start using article talk pages instead of directly editing articles. Explain what you want to do and see what others have to say about it. I've already been asked why you haven't been banned from David. I don't want to block you right now because you seem to be trying hard. But if you don't start following our policies at WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV and our guideline WP:RS you will probably end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

See WP:TALKPAGE which tells you how to start a new section, how to sign, etc. Talk:David is David's talk page (we also call them discussion pages which can be confusing). Note they are to discuss the article but not for general discussion of the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

David

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Yopienso (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm pasting in the note you left on my talk page so we can keep the conversation together.

Hello my friend

as to this edit, I did nothing in any way harmful to the article.

I went trhrough it, checked the sources and edited the places where sources were missing.

This is important to give the article a structure from beginning to end.

So your comment seems to be insubstantial, but I may be wrong of course.

Therefore the edits seem to have justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahk7 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The diff says otherwise. Please stop. Yopienso (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)