User talk:Alleichem

{{helpme}}

How do we settle discrepancies, if people don't want to listen?

I would be interested in what "discrepancies" you have found people don't want to "settle", when this looks like your first edit. WP:Dispute resolution is what you're supposed to use if you have disagreements with other users and have already tried simply talking to each other. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading several articles which still are being edited...so how do we come to set decision. It's a little suprising that anyone can edit anything they want. How does it work? Alleichem (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Wikipedia is highly unlikely to be "finished" in the near future and all articles are still being edited. Not entirely sure what you mean by the second question. I noticed you added something to a talkpage; you can always just add things to the article yourself. I've added a "welcome template" underneath here; it contains some useful links to things. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Alleichem, 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! Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much kind sir. Alleichem (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God

Hi, some thoughts concerning your addition to God -

The word god itself does show some etymological link to idols, ^[1] therefore, some faiths such as the Assemblies of Yahweh have returned to using the Name of YHWH.

The source you give leads to:

O.E. god "supreme being, deity," from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. Du. god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Skt. huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Gk. khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus. Not related to good. Originally neut. in Gmc., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. O.E. god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been P.Gmc. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Gmc. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-.

"I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." [Voltaire]

First record of Godawful "terrible" is from 1878; God speed as a parting is from c.1470. God-fearing is attested from 1835. God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs.

I cannot find anything regarding idols and certainly nothing concerning the AoY's rationale for using YHWH in that dicdef. Do you have a source which supports the statement in its entirety? And if so, I suggest Names of God as a better placement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks Killer Alleichem (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thanks for joining the team and stepping right in with edits. As always, you can be bold with edits because nothing is really lost at Wikipedia. There are always a couple of hiccups as people get used to the methodology here, but don't worry about that. The big thing to remember is that Wikipedia itself doesn't have an opinion or new information in the articles (or we try not to). What we try to do is to find sourced opinions and information here and weave them all together with the references noted. Instead of "YHVH is God's name" it's more like "Gesenius writes in his Hebrew Grammar that the Divine Name was pronounced as 'Yahweh'" and then give the source. Also, we can't really rely on primary sources because people have so many opinions. Instead of "Jesus is God because it says so in John 1:1" we could write "Many scholars (cite, cite) hold that John 1:1 declares Jesus to be God" and then cite Wallace's Greek Syntax as a reference. Again, be bold, but at the same time keep a balance on talk pages. One good example I've seen is to edit, and if it's reverted, talk about it on the talk page for a consensus. If you can't get one, get a third opinion to find out what both sides are missing.

Enjoy your time here! :-)SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, you may be interested in reading our essay about original research, as it is quite thorough in explaining what is and isn't OR, how to phrase things so they aren't OR, etc etc. Let me know if you need any help. L'Aquatique[parlez] 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information kind sir. I will start taking this in to account. Alleichem (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Article Original Synthesis

Hi. The Catholic Church's respect of Jewish Law is not the subject of the Lord article and the only evidence of it being relevant to the use of the word "Lord" is in your opinion and speculation. What you are doing is known as original synthesis, in that you are sourcing two separate facts and performing a comparison between them in order to prove your point. Unless you have a reputable cite from a source that has already done this, it is not permissible on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleichem, please don't take this the wrong way, but you should read the links that people are providing you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It isn't a blog or a person website, or a forum where views can be debated. Your views and conclusions may be right. Or they may not be. But Wikipedia isn't the place to hash it out.

Sometimes the fact that anyone can get an account on Wikipedia and make edits gives the impression that Wikipedia is a place to demonstrate creativity. It really isn't, though. If you can cite a reliable source for a fact, by all means add it to an article. If a reliable source seems to imply a fact (in your opinion, however well reasoned it may be), you can't add it to an article.

No one is trying to censor you; it is simply a matter of respecting what Wikipedia is about. What its purpose is. And what its rules are. I hope you can take this criticism in a positive light and try to avoid inserting original research and synthesis into Wikipedia articles. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, Alleichem... sometimes it's hard to get the knack of this right away. I've taken a look at your recent attempts to edit and I can see that it could get frustrating. You're trying to contribute and things keep getting wiped out by different people. What I see is that you're coming at this from the opposite angle that Wikipedia is designed for. We try not to say what we think, and we try not to pin point sources that only say what we think. What we try to do is to look up a subject and see what kind of sources we have on it, and then embed that sourced information in the most appropriate place we can find. For most of us that's sufficient, since a random sampling of sources will give the mainstream view 90%+ of the time. But then there's that remaining 10%, isn't there? We all have blind spots. There are gaps in objectivity from each editor here, and some of our sources aren't mainstream at all. That's what other editors help us with -- our blind spots. Right now you have a very specific interest in the Divine Name, and even more specifically in a very specific group that use a very specific pronunciation of one specific Divine Name. But the very thing that makes that one group attractive to you is also what makes it problematic for Wikipedia: it's special because it's NOT mainstream. And here's where Wikipedia gets a bit clunky. We try to be pedestrian around here. You might be delighted at how much of a challenge it is to NOT say anything new! But that's what we do! And it's not so bad, if you agree with the preacher that there is nothing new under the sun.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"most of us that's sufficient, since a random sampling of sources will give the mainstream view 90%+ of the time. But then there's that remaining 10%, isn't there? " You're right, I'm here to add the 10%. It isn't right that you or anyone else should delete what I put simply because a view is not shared by the majority. I tend not to delete, only to add a view. Now, I would appreciate if you wouldn't keep reverting my posts to something you desire. See, wikipedia isn't about you (or me), it's about truth, whether we like it or not. Thank you. Alleichem (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)At one point most people believed the world was flat. I'm like the man who's showing the evidence that it isn't. Peace. Alleichem (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I've read the tutorial. I'm well in my rights to present the views surrounding any given subject. WP:NPOV Alleichem (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a matter of "rights", Alleichem. This isn't a battlefield. Wikipedia is supposed to present various views, if they exist, but according to proper weight.

Let me explain why I reverted your edits to Names of God in Judaism. Sit back and relax, because this may take a while.

The first paragraph in the article speaks about what names of God in Judaism are. You wanted to replace this with an a specific point of view which is not only an uncommon view, but is utterly foreign to Judaism. The paragraph that was there originally accurately reflects the Jewish view. And since the name of the article is Names of God in Judaism and not Names of God in the Bible, it's the Jewish view which should be reflected. Do you understand this?

I did didn't I? I was trying to present the view more understandably, so secular Jews can understand too.

Next, you keep adding the sentence "The translators therefore chose to attempt to translate the Name rather than to transliterate it." This is purely your opinion. And even if you were to find a source that agrees with you, I'll repeat that this article is called Names of God in Judaism. Is there any source that supports this sentence of yours in Judaism?

I do have sources yes. But not on me, I'll come back to this one later.

Continuing, you cite the Encyclopedia Judaica for your claim that the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton has not been lost. But you can't just cite an entire encyclopedia. You need to give a volume. A page. And for the record, I have the EJ downstairs from where I'm sitting right now, so if you do cite a volume and page, I'm going to immediately check your citation. I don't believe any such claim is made in it, other than the Jewish tradition that there are 36 righteous Jews in the world at any given time who know it. And that doesn't help you, because the same tradition says that they can't tell anyone else.

I have Volume 7 page 680. It says the true pronunciation Yahweh was never lost.Alleichem (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next, you cite Doctor J.B.Rotherham for a statement about the weird hybrid "Jehovah". That's not a proper citation. Who is JB Rotherham? Where did he say such a thing? For the record, I happen to agree with the citation, but my agreement or disagreement doesn't matter. It's not a valid citation. You might as well cite Ebenezer DeSoto (no, he doesn't exist; I just made up the name on the spot).

J. B Rotherham was a translator and a Biblical scholar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bryant_Rotherham Alleichem (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please at least try to respect the way Wikipedia works? Give valid citations. Stop trying to push an agenda. Discuss things on talk pages. We're all trying to assume good faith on your part, but it's becoming harder each time you ignore everyone who has tried to communicate with you and pursue your agenda. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own agenda doesn't differentiate much from yours, believe me. I just happen to want to present the knowledge I have about subjects on this encyclopedia. I use valid sources to back up what I say, and willinglty accept if there's a source which is not suitable for articles. Alleichem (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God in Judaism

Alleichem, I had to remove a number of errors you were still leaving in one of the articles. Just to get the hang of things, could you pick a completely unrelated subject for a few weeks? It seems that the name of God is very dear to your heart, and it may be hindering your ability to get how things are done around here. You are still putting your own conclusions into the article, and you are still using Wikipedia to source itself -- we can't do that. Rest assured that God's name will still be around once you get the hang of things. Nothing really goes away here, and once you get the system of how we do sourcing it will be easier for you to make edits that stick. Please write me if you need any help understanding how we do this. Also, I'd like to recomment Lisaliel to you as a good example to follow for how to source. She's one of the best sourcers here at Wikipedia. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sky. Who are you? Alleichem (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Tim. And yourself? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim/Sky. I'm still getting used to seeing two different names for the same person. You reverted one of my sections on a Yahweh threead even though I provided ample evidence for my assertion. What is your reason for this? Peace. Alleichem (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that you are creating WP:UNDUE weight for that 10% view. Wikipedia is about the 90% I mentioned above. Most of the time the 10% is unnecessary. But ALL of the time the 90% is to be clearly presented as such. SkyWriter 13:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream opinion isn't always truth since most people have never studied in to the subject. For example: Mainstream belief is that evolution is correct, but the debate would be lost if we didn't include the mention of Intelligent Design. I find that the more knowedge we acquire, the more it sets us apart from mainstream opinion. A sentance or two about a conflicting view does not unbalance the article. So shalom. Alleichem (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleichem -- Wikipedia isn't about creating truth, but simply about documenting notable and verifiable information. There IS a place for the information you are presenting, but not in the places you are trying to present it. You need to step back for a spell and practice with subjects less dear to your heart until you get the hang of it. Then you'll be able to find (or create) the appropriate places for the kind of information that you are unsuccessfully trying to place. Right now you have a number of editors routinely reverting everything you do everywhere you go. Of those editors, I've only previously encountered one. Think for a moment and slow down for a bit -- why would editors who have never encountered each other all suddenly do the same reverts for all edits you make across the board? No one has anything against you. We certainly aren't part of some secret society. Rather, we're a bunch of Wikipedia editors who've gone through the practice of placing the appropriate emphasis in the articles we edit. You can get there too -- and when you do you'll be able to work out the appropriate corner for the information that is dear to you. Please, just slow down and practice on a different subject for a while till you get the hang of it. Okay? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about creating truth, I said that wikipedia is about truth.

Actually, it isn't. It may be true or false that "God exists". Wikipedia doesn't care. All Wikipedia cares about is notability and verifiability. Are there notable and verifiable sources with views on the existence of God? Yes. But not every view is notable or verifiable -- and that's where you are hitting a brick wall with the other editors here. That's why I'm suggesting to practice on a subject you aren't so close to, to see how we do things here. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" All Wikipedia cares about is notability and verifiability." Good. Then we shouldn't have a problem. I've backed up all my evidence with sources, so why are you complaining? You complain when I use sources and complain when I don't. It's you that has the problem, not me my friend. Peace. Alleichem (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are placing UNDUE weight on non-notable information. That's the problem. It doesn't matter how verifiable a source is if it isn't notable. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call a sentance which corresponds to the subject UNDUE weight. That's why you're the only one claiming it. You have to have an open mind to truth, or you'll always be living a lie. That's my quote, think on it sometime 16:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"That's why you're the only one"... think about that statement. Think about all the edits you are making and how a number of editors from different backgrounds who've never before encountered each other are all reverting them. There's no conspiracy against truth. There's simply Wikipedia process. Please PRACTICE on a subject less dear to you until you get the hang of it. God isn't changing His Name any time soon, is He? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my pages have been reverted, others slightly modified. Lisa, you and another person are the only ones reverting. When peoples views are challenged, they often feel insecure. So, it's understandable. However, the truth may prevail. Doing the right thing, is ussually always doing the most unpopular thing. And for this board, yes, people who present hidden truths get the most contention. Alleichem (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tim, he's found us out. Yes, Alleichem, you've discovered our diabolical conspiracy to hide the truth (muahahahaha). We are a secret cabal of truth-haters who devote our time to ensuring that the truth remains hidden. We particularly watch out for Holy Truth-Bearers such as yourself, because we cannot abide the light you bring. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa? Alleichem (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do?

Help Me Question

I've added a very balanced article on the Yahweh and Zeus article and a user continues to revert it for no reason whatsoever. What do I do? I've added several sources and researched meticulously in to the subject and discussed it! Alleichem (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try discussing on the editors talk page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I'll give it a go but they'll probably come up with 101 excuses as to why evidence they don't agree with, shouldn't be presented. Alleichem (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's not working. I'm getting no decent replies. The only reply I get is: "The problem is Wikipedia practice. We've [SIC] given you a number of articles to study [SIC] and invited you to pick a different subject until you get the hang of how things work here. Please read the articles and follow the friendly advice people are giving you. There's no cabal going on. "

The only friendly advice they're giving is to read other articles. It's basically they're way of saying, we don't like evidence, so go away. What more can I do? I've researched for hours to prove that what I am saying is correct and can be verified. There's nothing wrong with my sources, and two people using this encyclopedia continue to block my articles.

What do I do? Alleichem (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC) {{helpme}}[reply]

What do I do?Alleichem (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC) The user now claims that my sources aren't notable. Have you read the Yahweh sources I have provided. I've offered evidence from books, scholars, from Zeitlin to Rabonowitz all of which clearly back up what I am saying. Alleichem (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Here's just a few:[reply]

Bullinger, E. W. “Companion Bible”. London: Samuel Bagster and sons limited, rpt 1972. Black, Matthew. “An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts”. Oxford Clarendon 1967. Cross F.L “Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church”. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Schweitzer, Albert. “The Quest of the Historical Jesus”. New York: Macmillon Co, 1968. > Yorrey Charles Cutter. Documents of the Primitive Church New York: Harper and Brothers 1941. Howard, George “The Tetragram and the New Testament” Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 96. (1977 – March) No. 1 (About likelihood of Tetragrammaton appearing in original texts) Rabbonowitz, Israel “The original Book of Mark” Journal of Semitic Studies . Vol XVI (1971 – Autumn). Alleichem (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why those sources wouldn't be reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try taking each change to the talk page and try to get consensus. Put on there what you want to change and the sources to back it up. Only do a little at a time. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. I'll give it a go, but it's certainly long winded.

Alleichem, I think you misunderstand what citing sources means. You can't cite a source for something that supports your conclusion. The citation has to state the conclusion itself. Otherwise you're doing original research. That's what original research means, after all. Drawing your own conclusions based on evidence or prior sources. You can't do that here.

Also, your citations are problematic. You've cited an entire encyclopedia in one case, without giving a volume or page number. You've talked about what some sources say without giving details so that your references can be checked.

Painting yourself as a victim isn't helping. We're trying to help you, but you're insisting on continuing with the same thing over and over. And you seem to be a bit of a one-trick pony, as well. This one issue interests you, and you insist on modifying articles to make the point you want to make. That raises red flags around here, because Wikipedia is supposed to be coming from a neutral point of view, and not giving undue weight to views that are non-mainstream. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep bringing up the past, when I first started? You cannot put forward your own view above scholarly views. I'm sorry, but you can't. Saying the Name Yahweh is "the best possible guess" is an insult to my intelligence, and to the many scholars out their who actually know about the Name YHWH. In Israel the name Yahweh was mentioned and the Orthodox Jews said "He mentioned the Name of Elokhim". The Name Yahweh is known to be a very accurate transliteration of the Tetragrammaton. Our views shouldn't obscure evidence, let the evidence speak for itself. Alleichem (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIDEBAR----@Sky and Lisa...How nice it is to see your co-operation. Your careful explanations and assumtions of good faith are commendable. @Alleichem...Sometimes when the Universe is trying to tell you something, it is wise to listen. Both of these editors are invaluable as potential mentors for you. I'm sure they will work with you to possibly include your edits. It seems the problem is not WHAT they are but HOW they are presented. Please do not dig a hole so deep that you can not see over the top. WikiPedia is a community. Any war, any where effects us all! Peace is not just a salutation.--Buster7 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alleichem, your actions on the Yahweh page are in violation of the three revert rule:

On the Yahweh page:

Please refrain from your edit war, and please refrain from spreading the warlike activity on several pages:

Thank you. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops.Sorry about that sky. It's not an edit war. I was rectifying spelling mistakes. I wouldn't call rectifyig spelling mistakes an edit war, would you? BTW - one of mods said that I could make changes to the article if a consensus was reached. Alleichem (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)I followed the advice to "Only do a little at a time" so a consensus could be reached. Alleichem (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best methodology is to make an edit, and if it is reverted go to the talk page and reach a consensus. So far there has been a consensus of disagreement with your edit, which you are incrementally bringing back. That isn't the correct way to go about it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to reach a consensus on spelling mistakes? I went to the talk page and you didn't want to respond. When someone doesn't want to write on the talk page, whose fault is it when we edit? That's right Sky. Remember, I was talking with you but you failed to reply many,many many times. I wonder why? I've only been discussing it with you. You said "consensus of disagreement with your edit". What consensus of disagreement. You mean your consensus of disagreement. You don't like evidence, so why would you agree? Peace and Shalom. Alleichem (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was at lunch. You don't wait five minutes and then cry "no disagreement". The fact is that Lisa and I are both talking to you here. We've both explained the same thing. Other editors are reverting you on multiple pages and some of them have tried to talk with you as well. You are acting contrary to consenus. Please stop. If you continue I will be forced to stop assuming good faith. SkyWriter (Tim) ([[User

talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey that's really funny, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Oh no. You were at lunch. Your lunch must've been very big and lasted for many hours. BTW - I've been on wikipedia all day. Peace now Alleichem (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC) And don't bring Lisa in to this, she only recently (last few minutes) went on the YAHWEH article today. Alleichem (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then what was this?

Talk pages aren't IRC. You don't get an instant response. Alleichem, do you think you're the first person ever to come into Wikipedia pushing an agenda and ignoring a consensus against your edits? I assure you that the Wikipedia dispute resolution process can deal with this. Please stop now. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect an instant response, but the members can look at my articles that i've edited and seen how quick the response is to revert my pages in comparison to the responses to the reply on a talk page. They will be able to see that there is a huge difference between the two. Alleichem (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC) And I would appreciate if you would stop saying "please stop" all the time, since I'm not actually doing anything apart from talking to you. Alleichem (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa has the following problem with the article: ", if you're going to say that Jellicoe draws evidence from those four scholars, you should give the appropriate citations." Actually, in the pages that I stated, all scholars can be found. Thes escholars are also mentioned in the article itself. Alleichem (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleichem, your pseudo-scholars will simply be replaced by legitimate mainstream scholars -- today, tomorrow, next week, or next year. It's unknown who will over-write them, and it's also unimportant. The reason you are being reverted on all the pages you've edited is because you are pushing a fringe agenda that simply cannot survive Wikipedia standards. To "win" you have to surrender to the standards of Wikipedia, knowing that the only edits that count are the ones that can survive without you when you've passed on to another subject. That's the way it is around here. It's not what you can force in -- but what you don't need to force. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. The mods don't believe that there is anything wrong with my evidence, nor would you if you were in the right frame of mind. Please. Let's have shalom, as this "calling names" "101" excuses and "I was having lunch" is really taking it's toll on me. Peace everybody. Alleichem (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported your edit warring. Also, please consider that Lisa and I have been more than fair in attempting to communicate with you. When you want help making permanent edits, please let us know. In the meantime, please understand that your edits will not stand the scrutiny of experienced editors here. Good luck. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Yahweh. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 20:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alleichem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

stub rationale— editor added rationale below. --slakr^{\ talk /} 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The three revert rule is fairly clear. In fact, there's an abnormally bolded warning on your talk page emphasizing it. There are only very rare instances when editors are allowed to violate the 3RR after being warned of doing so, and it's usually only in cases of specific, severe policy violations, as outlined in the body of the policy. — slakr^\ talk / 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello. I think I should be unblocked for several reasons.

1. I had discussed with the members constantly about the course of action to take, but the only advice I received was to go elsewhere.

2. My last edits was me correcting spelling mistakes

3. I used a [Help Me] several times and took their advice. They agreed that my sources were verifiable.

4. If you look at this page I've clearly provided answers to all the questions.

The general problem is three Christians simply want the Name Yahweh to look like a cut-and-paste, papier-mâché, patchwork type of word. They've claimed it's a "guess". They've claimed that the evidence of an Aramaic original only lies within a couple of "loan words". They've claimed that "Jellicoe’s work is speculation". Every time I add even a sentence, they'll pick it to pieces, finding any excuse.

Take this abstract example: If I write on an Einstein article "Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family" they'd say back it up. So I'd back it up. Then they'd say discuss. So I'd discuss something which I know to be true from basic evidence. Then they'd say it's not relevant on an article about Einstein and the excuses just keep coming. Nothing gets done because no one really wants to change. So that’s when I got impatient and started simply putting up my changes. Then they complain and revert and I'm at square 1. If they had a small problem with what I had said, they would rectify the small problem, not get rid of everything I said. Isn't this obvious that these three members (and one other who is acting suspiciously similar to one of them), are not willing to discuss and if they are, already have their minds up that no matter what anyone says, the article is going to remain the same.

Have a look yourself please, and see the excuses for them not allowing me to make the changes on Yahweh article. They said back up my sources so I have. I spent the entire day at the Researching Institute just compiling a list of scholarly opinion that clearly proves what I have said is correct. I've contributed the msot sources to the article than anyone else has on their own, but still the excuses keep rolling in.

If you unblock I’ll be sure to discuss all the changes before I make them, but not if I want to correct a spelling error :]. Shalom. Alleichem (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also other members have broken the 3RR several times, but have got away with it~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&action=history. Also they've accused me of synthesis, yet no one there has actually read the sources I provided, hence the question mark. Alleichem (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk

Hi, Alleichem, I hope this finds you well.
Allow me to introduce myself; I'm L'Aquatique, I'm an admin here on the English Wikipedia, as well as a member of WikiProject Judaism. I'm also involved in dispute resolution, and I've been asked to talk with you about some of your edits to Judaism/G-d related articles.
I see that you've been having some problems with other editors about your additions to articles, such as these: [1] and [2]. You have been told by numerous Wikipedians that your edits do not conform to our policy on orginal research, and synthesis, so I won't try to beat a dead horse. Instead, I'd just like you to know that while you're allowed to disagree with our policies, and I do understand why you feel the way you do, edit warring is not the way to instigate change. We have rules about reverting other people's changes- generally if you revert something more than three times you can be blocked, which would be sad because I do believe you have a lot to contribute.
Here's the thing: Wikipedia reports, and that's about all we do. It's not our job to act as publishers of original thought. So, while we cover certain phenomena that are outside of mainstream thought, we generally are very careful to not give it undue weight, because we're reporting and the report that we are giving is that "the vast majority of people believe this", "reference", end of story. Other stuff may be mentioned if well cited, but we try to keep that to a minimum. That's just the way it works. So, while I respect your desire to represent the oppressed 10%, I just don't think Wikipedia is the place to do it.
Therefore, I have to ask you to be more careful when adding information. We have a lot of great people here who would be glad to help you out in deciding what is and what isn't original thought. I have only glowing praise for our adopt-a-user program, wherein experienced editors pair up with new editors in a mentorship arrangement. There are tons of adopters ready and willing to adopt you, and it would not be difficult to find one who fits your interests. If you so desire, I can hook you up with one.
If you have any questions about what I've mentioned, or just want to comment, feel free to reply to this message either here or on my talk page. I hope we can work together to find a solution we're all happy with. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that you were blocked while I was writing this. That's what I get for being long-winded. Your block will expire tomorrow and I hope that you will still take what I have said to heart. You can edit your own page even when blocked, so we can still dialogue about this in the meantime if you so desire. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thank you. But I'd like to say that mainstream opinion can diffentiate quite a lot from scholarly opinion. Hardly any scholars I know of would claim that Yahweh is a guess word. But thats what we find on this encyclopedia. Is this really fair? I'm not presenting undue weight, but things which people should know and don't want to admit. Is it appropriate? I think it is. Some people don't like the facts they're presented with, but we should still present them. Shalom. Alleichem (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alleichem: Could you explain the difference, if any, between what you call "mainstream opinion" and "scholarly opinion" and which "mainstream" and "scholarly" opinions you were referring to? Do you accept that there is a huge difference between Judaic opinions and those coming from Christian sources? How about the difference of opinions between those Jewish and rabbinic scholars who have been regarded as the only mainstream for millenia and still teach the Torah according to the accepted Jewish texts versus those who teach from a secular modern academic perspective that incorporates Biblical criticism? You need to clarify what it is and who it is that you are relying upon when you make changes or statements because you cannot expect that every editors will automatically agree with what you write or do. IZAK (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly evidence gives credence to the Name not only being Yahweh, but also existing in the original manuscripts. It's not the impression I get from reading the Yahweh article, what do you think? Rather a very unreal view is presented. The mainstream view that what we call a god doesn't matter, and all names put on to him were devised by humans is erroneous. Alleichem (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice, I understand the view according to Judaism, and the view concerning Christians (generally). I'm just relying upon the prominent books and magazines I have read, from Charles Torrey, to Zetlin in the JQR to Rotherham in his preface. I'm just astounded people on this encyclopedia haven't read the material from these people themselves. And those who have, still don't want their voices heard. I’ve done the research, all one has to do is read the sources themselves. Alleichem (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skywriter

Hello. I've noticed something. Apparently you tried to pervert the article by using another member name. I think I should have you reported. You have also been banned for 24 hours. If you choose to have it lifted, I would suggest you to stop fighting against the evidence and also stop trying to debunk a article which is now more balanced. It's up to you, but you should choose your words carefully. Alleichem (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to use more than that one member name again I'll note it and please, lets work together, or else next time you might be banned for good. Shalom Alleichem to the Admin for their justifyable actions. Perhaps this cool down will allow sky to think about what he has done over "lunch". Adding a clearly documented assertion shouldn't provide such controversary among a handful of Christians, who don't want the evidence of the Name YHWH to be presented. Alleichem (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Alleichem -- it's not impossible that you encounted me by another name. I changed the handle a few weeks ago. Regardless, I have no agenda with you, but I have no need to continue pouring help your way only to be edit warred. There are other editors here who follow Wikipedia policies. Sometimes we stumble, but it's not by design. The good news is that most people here DO follow the standards. You are welcome to join us. But please take advantage of the help that's offered. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is talking about edit war? You and I were both blocked for this edit war. I didn't report anything, I hope you understand that. If you choose to have more than one username that's up to you, but I'd appreciate it if you would just stick to the one, since it's breaching the rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SkyWriter Alleichem (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not breaking the rules to change your user name. I made a request, and it was granted. It also changed the entire user history to the new name. If you go to my old name it will redirect you to the new name. As for the edit war -- I was blocked for making five reversions in a month on the Yahweh page. Whether five in a month is excessive can be a subjective judgment call. Nevertheless, I was one of a number of people from several different backgrounds reverting you the other day -- and one of them was an admin, tracking down edits you had made which were in violation of Wiki standards. Again, I have no beef with you. I'm simply asking you to focus on edits that will not be reverted. It will make everything easier for you, easier for the people trying to uphold Wiki standards, and more enjoyable all around. Try it. You might like it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we just get on? I didn't report you to anyone. I was banned so was you. That's all. Can we please have peace and shalom? Alleichem (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleichem -- for the last time, please stop edit warring in Yahweh. Every time I turn around you are putting material in that has been removed by more users than I can count. If you want peace, then stop warring. It's that simple. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not warring? Has anyone edited what I have said? No. That's because what I have added is aevidence. Don't you like evidence? I'm sorry anyone who reads this, but Sky/Tim seems to think that if we add evidence to an article it's an edit war. I don't get you. No one has edited what I said. No edit war. Only you have problem with evidence it seems. Now, I wouldn't want you editing what I put, or else I'll have to get admon. And by the way, I've put my changes on talk (it's been up for five hours and I haven't received a reply). Peace and Shalom Alleichem (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)I haven't put in any evidence that was taken out previously, so I have no idea what (talk) is talking about) Alleichem (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's been up for five hours. Everyone was asleep on this side of the planet. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on this one every one was awake. By the way good morning. Make sure you have a good breakfast too, keep your energy levels up! :]. Back to the point though, I've left all my changes on talk. I added the scholars names that you all were begging for and interdispersed them within the article. I don't see why you should get so angry about that. Alleichem (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Here if you don't believe me have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240868599&oldid=240715575 Alleichem (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleichem -- I don't understand why you are trying to push this. Are there sources to "prove" that Bigfoot exists? Sure. But there's still no carcass, and until there is, and until MAINSTREAM scholarship holds the creature to exist, Wikipedia can't treat it as a given -- or even as a mainstream belief. You can pack all the "scholars" you want in the article, but that won't save your edits because these are fringe scholars, or you aren't quoting them accurately. I don't know which it is yet. As it stands, your edits will not stand. You are claiming that Jews secretly "know" the proper pronunciation of the Divine Name. You are also claiming that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, without a shred of evidence... and that the Divine Name was in those Aramaic originals that don't exist. It's, well, bizarre. And while we're at it, just who else do you think I am? Garzo? Lisa? Who? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitlin, Torrey, Bullinger, Jellicoe all fringe scholars. I doubt it. Christianity began as a fringe faith. Judaism began as a fringe religion. Can we not understand? Scholarship cannot prove as yet what the original language was of the New Testament was. I find it hypocritical that at the smae time of accusing the Name Yahweh as a guess, with no conclusive evidence, the New Testament is (by you) thought to be definitely written in Greek. If my forefathers would have heard some of the things said today about the Nmae Yahweh, they wouldn't have had it. The Jews put the name away so it couldn't be blasphemed, today it is blasphemed and called a Name of no authenticity. BTW - many scholars do believe it was Hebrew. Hows the checkuser going anyway?

The only thing that you've succeeded in doing is motivating others to better document the mainstream view. As for your sources -- as I've said, you are either picking fringe sources (in some cases) or using them incorrectly (in others). The Yahweh article isn't even the correct article for the subject. As for the checkuser... I think we should wait a bit to see how it goes. This entire discussion, the edit warring, and the RfC, could become moot if you are Mod objective. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa?

You keep changing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Exodus Why? What about 3RR?

See ...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Exodus&action=history The 22nd September. I am sorry to have to say this Lisa, but I do feel you can be very argumentative. You should be discussing not changing the page all the time. You've created another edit war. And look...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Exodus&diff=240420163&oldid=240365826 Why are you deleting so much? I am sorry Lisa, but this won't do. We're both Jews, but you really don't want anything but the orthodox version of Judaism to be presented do you? I think that's clearly wrong and the main problem of the contention which you contine to embroil yourself in. Perhaps the Admin can help amend your ways. Shalom Alleichem (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me Question

A user has reverted back to the previous version though I have used excellent sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeus&diff=240327531&oldid=240216358 Talking hasn't worked, instead the user is going way of track, referring to the Septuagint. Alleichem (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your best option at this point is to follow the steps at WP:DR. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. But I'd just like to say I'm sick and tired of Christians trying to push their ideas above every else's. It's not right. Some scholars believe that Jesus's image is based on that of Zeus. One sentence (mine) has been heavily backed up and has been rejected for the sake of personal feeling. Apparently Garzo (a admin) doesn't want anyone to have any view that threatens a ignorant view of Christianity. Alleichem (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know -- I've counted four Jews and two Christians reverting your edits (and that's just the first few I looked at). Wikipedia policies are ecumenical. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is talking about edit war? You and I were both blocked for both engaging in an edit war. I didn't report anything against you, I hope you understand that. If you choose to have more than one username that's up to you, but I'd appreciate it if you would just stick to the one, since it's breaching the rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SkyWriter Alleichem (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim isn't using multiple usernames. If I use Lisa (notice where it links to) or The Best Damn Editor on Wikipedia, it's still the same username. You edit warred and got blocked for it. I still don't understand why Tim was blocked. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, I know about changing the name. That's not what I'm referring to, I'm talking about Tim/Sky using another username altogether. Tim was banned for edit war, just as I. I don't see why we have to argue about little things Lisa. I know the saying is "two Jews three opinions", but this contention really is unnecessary. I appreciate you getting rid of the section on the Yahweh article, I gathered it was speculative, but noone would let me delete if I tried. Alleichem (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Lisa's point was not that the Name was never pronounced, but that the pronunciation has been lost, so that /a/ and /e/ in those specific points is a hypothesis. I'd agree with that, but my concern and Lisa's don't really line up: she cares about the pronunciation, and I don't. PiCo (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PiCo. The Name can be pronounced and was never lost according to the encyclopaedias. Though the 10 northern tribes lost their identity, the Name was never lost through the two. Alleichem (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no encyclopedia on earth that says that. You've made this claim before, and even cited the Encyclopedia Judaica as evidence (though without any volume or page numbers, because you know full well it says nothing of the sort).

If no one would let you get rid of an unsourced section, which I doubt, it's probably because you're a one-trick pony pushing an agenda. You can't do that here. You were blocked (not banned) for edit warring already. You're risking much longer blocks, if not outright bans, if you don't stop. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Alleichem)

Hello, Alleichem. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alleichem, where you may want to participate. -- LisaLiel (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you for making it aware. May I just point out that your wrong. I did tell you the name of the encyclopedia in the above section "Lord Article Original Synthesis", but you seemed to have brushed it aside.Alleichem (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

Alleichem, just so you'll know, I've added your new user name to the existing checkuser for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mod_objective SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god

[1] ttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god

[1]