User talk:A Georgian

Deadener

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Deadening, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Deadening. Bubba73 (talk), 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to New Testament articles

Hi. You're doing a lot of edits to New Testament articles (such as Epistle to the Romans, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Second Epistle to the Corinthians etc.). I appreciate the work you're putting it, but it seems to me that a lot of it doesn't match Wikipedia guidelines. e.g. some introductory paragraphs read like opinion, and the exegesis is a collection of quotes, and may not be suitable for an encyclopedia article. Also your citations are not done in Wikipedia style, which makes it very hard to verify and follow. I urge you to do put more effort into making it match Wikipedia style and guidelines, otherwise someone may go in and revert all your changes and then your work will be for nothing. Also, can I ask what is the source? Did you do it for Wikipedia, or does it come from essays you wrote, or somewhere else? Peter Ballard (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Probably better to reply here than on my Talk page. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter,

You are welcome. I am learning about Wikipedia guidelines by trial and error. I appreciate the corrections that have been made so far, and hope that I will become better at this over time, but my first interest is in getting my notes up. I hope that others will not delete substantive material simply because of formatting issues. It would perhaps be more correct to say that I have added material rather than edited it; I have not deleted anything anyone else has put up, although I have commented on a couple of things in discussion.

The notes themselves are exclusively those I have made myself - I have never published anything - for the past ten years while cranking through the Bible in Hebrew with the help of three commentaries: Adam Clarke (1831), The Interpreters Bible (1955), and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary 1990. I quote so extensively from these commentaries because I can so seldom improve upon them, and because if NPOV does not exist in nature MPOV may be the next best thing. Clarke is pre-Tubengin, TIB is protestant, TNJBC is Roman Catholic. When I do have something of my own to add, I generally "sign it". The text translations are my own.

Thank you for your interest and advice.

A Georgian (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, A Georgian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helps, Carl. Another editor has also contributed to getting some of my stuff in shape. I'm am still cranking relentlessly through the remaining books of the NT (from I Timothy at the moment) together with the three commentaries, so my contributions will be amateurish for some time to come. I understand that I may have to do over when I'm done. A Georgian (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki

Please don't "correct" Interwiki links, like this edit.[1] They are links to pages on other languages of Wikipedia (in this case Hebrew). When you "correct" the spelling, you break the link to the page on Hebrew Wikipedia. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that. So the link to "The Epistle to the Ephesian Twins" remains (such is the consequence of the extra yood; it turns a plural into a pair). A Georgian (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire support

I just remembered your old query. :-) I think I have it down to two: USS Galveston (CLG-3) or USS Providence (CLG-6). DANFS ends prior to the 1970 timeframe we need, and the Wikipedia articles provide no additional help. Cheers! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clarke

The reference to Clarke being antisemitic is NPOV. I don't think there'zs a need to editorialize - keep the quote and let people draw their own conclusions. Adam_sk (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote without context would be random. If the quote is to be characterized, then it should be descriptive. Terms such as "purile" are not used to criticize, but to reveal the mind of the one using them with respect to one's object. It is not my point of view that is of interest, but Clarke's. A Georgian (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone![reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks! A Georgian (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello A Georgian! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 35 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Gabriel Levin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the good wishes. Would you be kind enough to critically evaluate the "reliable sources" listed on my UserPage. It would be helpful to get an objective opinion from an Editor I respect. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read those sources. My ideas about language behind the NT were stimulated by Robert Lindsey and David Flusser. I spoke colloquial Hebrew, so was intrigued by Flusser's statement that sometimes, when translatiing Jesus' words from Greek BACK [my emphasis] into Hebrew, he could hear the very voice of Jesus. A Georgian (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epistle to the Romans‎

A Georgian, on October 29, I said, "Then don't readd it." Then you said, "OK", but then readded it again! What was that? (and what's with the tildes in your edit summaries?). Are you the one (IP address) who added that in the first place? If not, then why are you so intent on keeping it? And if so, then you should do it the right way. I quote: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones. When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." If not done this way, it is subject to be removed.

Also, I think you need to learn to properly work with other editors on a wiki site. When another editor (especially an established one—one who's been editing for awhile) removes or changes something, unless it's a flagrant violation (which would only happen about 10% of the time) it should be left alone—or at least just make a minor change (compromise). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Avoiding_or_limiting_your_reverts

And because your name is still red, I assumed that you were someone new or someone like a troll (that is something I look for when editing). You might want to fix that too. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musdan77.... Perhaps it is you that should learn what Wikipedia is for everyone and anyone and discontinue acting as if it is your own private project by excluding/attacking whomever disagrees with you. You continually tell others that if they do not like it, do not read it. What is up with that. If you ask me, you are a hypocrite and NOT a christian because you incite more hatred and evil than you seem to dispel and quiet. Apparently, A Georgian has decided that he does not wish to argue and disagree with the likes of you. (I can not blame him). THAT IS WHY HIS USER NAME IS IN RED IDIOT! However sir, I have taken a great interest in you and your edits. It would appear that you do not create much on Wikipedia and take great pleasure in reverting everyone elses' edits for your own egotistical reasons. So, get used to your actions on this site being monitored closely and with a slant toward criticism. Do onto others as you would have others' do unto you.... You should learn to follow a christian lifestyle rather than pretend to be a christian that prefers to follow Satan's ways and manners. You are a real jerk. 184.32.53.6 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, whether you are Georgian in secret or someone else who attacks anonymously. Are you supposed to be a Christian by yelling names at people? (and your statement makes no sense anyway). None of your allegations are true. I have never attacked anyone, and I only make edits that are necessary. I have had compliments on the work that I've done. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. My comments make no sense to you? They are plain as day and rather straightforward and comprehensible. Please note the signature on my previous post. What does that signify and mean to you, oh wise editor fool? I do not expect you to understand that because you know little about Wikipedia and the real workings of the logistics of the site at all.

Oh well moron Musdan, just like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so are your edits and accusations of other editors as well. I am not A Georgian, however, you have captured my attention and I am paying close attention (many others as well jerk) to your "constructive", alas destructive edits that serve no real constructive purpose.

A.Georgian in fact has been an editor longer than you and it is partially your actions and "contributions" that caused him to deactivate his editor user name and work on Wikipedia. Thank you for your stupidity friend.

As for your so called decorations, of your contributions, others have reported your contributions as warring, immoralizing and idiotic as well. So, just be aware that your edits are monitored and being watched closely. So, do unto others as you would have others do unto you.... You have been fairly warned!

65.9.255.68 (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & WP:PEA

Thanks for reverting my edits to the article this morning. It looks much better without my contributions. You're absolutely right, my short explanation in my edit note was tantamount to "no explanation." By the way in Wikipedia there's a page on peacock terms (WP:PEA), and I hope you can benefit from it if you ever have an opportunity to locate it. In any case I hope you have a chance to clean up the gospel of mark page if you think it's a worthwhile page for you to spend time on. Have a good new year, 72.129.81.5 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AGeorgian! Thanks for reading my contribution above. See WP:TALKO in the WP:TALK which lays out guidelines on editing comments on talk pages. I have reverted the refactoring of my talk entry here due to the following justifications which you will find on the Wikipedia guidelines for user talk pages:

From the guidelines - "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request."
You do not have my permission to edit or refactor my entry on your talk page.
My contribution to your talk page was not harmful, trolling, and it was not vandalism even in the most mild sense.
My contribution to your talk page was not otherwise prohibited in Wikipedia.

Thanks for taking time to read this. I hope this enjoins furtherment of scintillating discussion on the part of you, I and the Wikipedia community. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

someone anonymously changed the statement "I don't think there's ..." to "I don't think there'zs ... " That was a change to a talk post that, according to the rules posted above is unauthorized. Now it has been changed again. Am I missing something? A Georgian (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Lindsay Scruggs - Request for Help With Geneology/Religion/Boyhood/Education

Hi AGeorgian, I have been working on the William L. Scruggs page. Check it out! I would like to get more info on his parents, wife, children, religion and educational background. We don't even have an exact birthdate, only a year. Most of what is in the page currently is from historical and published sources. We know he died in Atlanta Georgia in 1912, and he was born in Nashville in 1836.

Do you think you can help with any of this? I only found a few resources online as to geneology: SCRUGGS FAMILY SURNAME & Wlliam LINDSAY SCRUGGS. I have a feeling the second site is a part of his ancestry yet there is no link to Nashville there, only Kentucky. Also I would be interested in finding what his formal schooling was. He was trained in law. Did he attend a college? Was he a confederate soldier? I know he was probably well acquainted with Leonidas Livingston too, but what was the extent of this relationship? Was he ever married, when was he married, what was his wife's name? Did he leave descendants? Are some of them still in Atlanta?

If you think you might help with any of this, please reply here, or by entry on Talk:William Lindsay Scruggs in the appropriate category, or just edit into the page on your own. Thanks so very much. VictorC (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I check geni.com for that name, but came up empty. Sorry A Georgian (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Benaiah. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. St Anselm (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I cited my reference and quoted the words that in it that support the alternate definition. What is lacking? I do not see how your reversions to a text that had no supporting references is OK, but my contribution is disruptive. A Georgian (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Epistle of James has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. I've got no reason to think that you were aware of our policy on copyright. I realise that it was in quotes and attributed, but that was too much. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew names

I don't know where you are getting your transliterations from, but they are non-standard - compare, for example, the transliteration in the [[Jacob] article. Also, the meanings of the names are unsourced - and often you ignore the Divine Name in your translations. St Anselm (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do my own transliteration. My source for meanings is The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary, 1975. I usually translate the various forms of YHVH as God when the context is clear; for some readers YHVH would itself need translation. A Georgian (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you need to carefully read Wikipedia:No original research. St Anselm (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that edit and support StAnselm's comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Micaiah, you may be blocked from editing. St Anselm (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Gospel of Matthew. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Matthew

I left a note for you on the Talk page there - basically, do you know of anyone who disagrees with Burkitt about the sources used in that gospel? PiCo (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Luke

I have started a talk section on the Gospel of Luke page so that you and the other editor can talk instead of edit warring. Vyselink (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know of about 50,000 Bible Scholars who disagree yet the liberals of Wikipedia are to lazy to look for anything that doesn't attack the Bible from their liberal presupposition and Anti-Christian bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Gospel of Luke shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Elizium23 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of minor biblical figures may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of minor biblical figures may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of minor biblical figures may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibn_Hamdis&oldid=622885893&diff=prev

Hi, A Georgian, I do not quite understand why you undid the edit. Lotje (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lotje. I had no problem with the information itself, but you had inserted some into a direct, referenced quotation from a reliable source. That made it appear that Levin (the author) used the words you had inserted. Does that answer your question? A Georgian (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maresha may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(13 mi) northwest of the city of Hebron. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayt_Jibrin</ref>) renamed Beit Guvrin after 1948.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arab satellite lists

Hi, do you have a source for this [2] edit? If true, it would be an important addition to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find. A Georgian (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hermann Venema

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Hermann Venema requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fenugreek. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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.
Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RPP of Fenugreek has been granted and the page fully protected with a note by the protecting administrator that further edit warring on this matter after the protection expires is not likely to go well for you. You've got a clean block log; it would be a shame to besmirch it over something as silly as continuing to edit war over something where you're clearly in violation of policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit war warning and a note

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zechariah (Hebrew prophet). 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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.

By the way, I think~ that what you want can be easily handled, without breaking the wikilink which is what your edit keeps doing. IF you don't don't know how to pipe a link, ASK. and stop edit warring! Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a NORN discussion

See Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Undead_and_Ezekiel. Also:

Your recent editing history at Undead shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert or you will probably be reported to WP:3RRNB. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Undead. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gospel of Luke may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

parable.JPEG|thumb|left|Parable of the Sower (Biserica Ortodoxă din Deal, Cluj-Napoca), [[Romania]])]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Aspergillum by Julia O'Gara.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Aspergillum by Julia O'Gara.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if Ms. O'Gara sends me an e-mail stating that she gives me permission to post the illustration and I forward that permissions-en@wikimedia.org we're done?A Georgian (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies in your corrections.

My friend,

Palestine did not exist in New Testament times. The Judea and Samaria region received the name of Palestine from the Roman emperor Hadrian in 135 AD, in the wake of his crushing the Bar Kochba revolt. It's a compound name meant to insult the jews, coming from long-time enemies of Israel, p'lishtim (philistines).

Even the New Testament calls that whole are Israel, not Palestine.

Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead who sought the young child’s life. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. (Matt. 2:20-21)

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say to you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man shall have come. (Matt. 10:23)

Keep true to the Scriptures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiki2134 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- the name "Palestine" first appears in Greek literature in the 5th Century BCE when the historian Herodotus called the area "Palaistinē" (Greek - Παλαιστίνη). http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/palname.html A Georgian (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, A Georgian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Etymologies of Hebrew Words

Hey Georgian. While I approve of trying to add citations for biblical etymologies, I've got an objection to using Roswell Dwight Hitchcock as a source. In order to keep everything centralized, I've started a discussion about it over on Talk:List of minor biblical figures, A-K.

Who do you suggest?

Well, if you want something online, the Holman Bible Dictionary (1991) is pretty good. [] If you want something in the public domain, then the Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899) is pretty good for etymologies, though they have some drawbacks on other material. Also, just going to "books.google.com" and then searching for the name in question will often bring up some good stuff. For a name like Hodaviah, for example, you'd search for "Hodaviah meaning" or "Hodaviah etymology" or "Hodaviah bible dictionary." When it comes to Smith's and Easton's Dictionaries, I really don't know one way or the other how reliable they are.Alephb (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong's Concordance

PS: Strong's Concordance isn't a reliable source on Hebrew words either. Scholars never use it, and it's frequently misleading. Alephb (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, A Georgian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A Georgian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A Georgian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actual objection

Referring me to the talk page is not a concrete objection and, by itself, is in fact tendentious. El_C 23:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More about Neshustan. Though you seem to have little interest in this creature

Dear A Georgian,

I have genuine curiosity. This seems to be very rare outside a seminary. https://thetorah.com/nehushtan-the-copper-serpent-its-origins-and-fate/ It is unlikely, but you may find: Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel by William G. Dever may interest you. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence editors Ernest S. Frerichs and Leonard H. Leslo is a favorite of mine. I was NOT surprised to find Moses in the the fiction section of a local Jewish library as I explored Jewish materials about Jesus. I am a long time member of the Association of Ancient Historians. (Only an amateur). I was honored to a student of Jane Schaberg. Have a nice day. Miistermagico (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem with Bible Commentaries

Dear A Georgian, I see you have been using: Adam Clarke (1831), The Interpreters Bible (1955), and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary 1990 as tools. These have have NOT kept up to speed with the latest discoveries and revelations of critical archaeology and critical ancient history. There has been much progress in these fields. Don't miss the excitement. Miistermagico (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Matthew

If you have any objections, go to the talk page first and let's settle it there. Edion Petriti (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parthians

Hi, you reverted my edit on First Epistle of John. I fixed a link to a disambiguation page. It seemed reasonable to me, since in general Parthians refers to people from Parthia, to link to Parthia. If not, what page should it link to? Lennart97 (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

>If I remember correctly, the apparently extraneous letters "NS" followed the link; I assumed it was an error.

It was not: [[Parthia]]ns: Parthians and [[Parthia|Parthians]]: Parthians give the same result. I'll change it back so that it links to Parthia again. Lennart97 (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that

SS

Hi, what does SS mean in your edit summary? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"smuggled smugness"

I remember using the phrase (it's Nabokov's) but I don't remember the context. A Georgian (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning!

Hi, just wondering about your editsummary here. How was my edit WP:OR? All I did was shorten the SD per WP:SDLENGTH. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 15:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a sourced definition and replaced it with an unsourced one. A Georgian (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change any meaning, and I did not remove any sources. I also did not delete a definition, simply changed two words. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 21:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranean cave

Hello, I was curious to know why you think a cave being subterranean is not redundant. By definition, all caves are underground, and that's exactly what subterranean means. Here's an experienced editor's take on the subject. Ctrl-F to find it. That page is specifically devoted to articles with "Duh" moments, to emphasize concise and clear prose. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's a distinction between a cave into the side of cliffs, for instance, such as those in which the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, and one under the ground, such a Mammoth Cave. A Georgian (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're issue isn't with the term underground. It's with location. As I said, any cave is underground, even a cliff face. What you want is a something like "beneath the city" or "cliff-face cave". Subterranean imparts nothing. If your cave is in some place unexpected, then point out how. Otherwise it adds nothing to the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leitmotiv - re. the above, it's "your issue", rather than "you're issue". Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1 really? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NBSP

Please read it before reverting, which is disruptive. BorgQueen (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew transliteration

You need to stop attempting to transliterate Hebrew. Respectfully, not only do you appear to not understand how Hebrew phonology works, you don't appear to have a clear idea of how to transliterate the words at all. Take Nadab, which you continuously restore the faulty reading to. The word is נָדָב – it is transliterated as Nāḏāḇ, maybe even Nādāv, not NahDaB. Transliteration is not just spelling out what the word sounds like. This goes for Talmai as well – the word is two syllables, Talmay, not Tahl-Mah-eeY. Patach-yod is not a-yee, it's ai. At least familiarize yourself with the systems Wikipedia uses to transliterate Hebrew before trying to emulate them. Emolu (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try listening to an on-line audio (e.g., Google translate) of the word pointed. Also see dictionary definition of Nadab. A Georgian (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is not a reliable source, mate. Nor would it pronounce either of these words as the way you are notating them. If this continues I'm taking it to ANI. Please just save us both the trouble and stop doing what you're doing. Emolu (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to ANI. A Georgian (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Emolu (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I hope it can be resolved quickly. A Georgian (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the candidates, but it was useful to be able to comment on issues with arbitration. A Georgian (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]