User talk:Noah Bernstein

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Noah Bernstein, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! bodnotbod (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Servetus

Thanks for your very understanding reply to my edit. The information you provided is valuable: perhaps we need a new section in the article, describing the history of Hebrew language study; or maybe there's an article on that already? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

After your edition all Michael's life makes much more sense. I edited it because the main difference is that , some information was known, some other was not, from the primary sources, the official documents. Now all information had been revealed, and at same time there was graphical proof of just half of them. So it is a " new" reinforcement and confirmation of some documents that were partially and blury known. And evidently they proof who Michael was. Secondary sources were based on fictional and non official documents. That is the change, and why in the scientific and international history expert circles the oppinion has drastically changed since 2 years. I am glad you are interested in Servetus and I am also happy we an expert on Conversos for dealing with that important aspect of Michael.--Donald Schäfer (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Servetus Archive

I have removed your comment on this page as it was in a portion that violated policy, specifically including WP:NPA. Personal attacks are never acceptable on Wikipedia. Per COI/N, the issue is resolved. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Violation of dispute resolution

Recently you have been making editions in the Michael Servetus article that are a clear violation of the resolution on fringe research that limits references to Mr. Echeverría's theories to one paragraph at the bottom of the page. I am afraid that you must stick to the terms of this resolution, or your violation of terms of the dispute resolution will be denounced to the administrators of Wikipedia. Besides, you are encouraged to produce working links or a PDF that support your other "sources", e.g. a direct link to the "Core Editions" publishing house and/or to the work itself that you are quoting. Otherwise I will assume that these references are fakes or unreliable sources. I must also remind you that according to a Wikipedia policy, a doctoral thesis is only accepted as a valid source if it is publicly available, therefore you are also encouraged to provide all the information so that it can be verified in full, otherwise this reference will be deleted for lack of verifiability. --Jdemarcos (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The references are real, if you are not able to find them, it is not my problem. The dispute resolution you mean that one you did not invite me to? What are you talking about? I will not deal here with absurd discussions with you Jaume. I know what goes on. So does anybody who checks the historial. Do you wanna change the concept of what an Act is? Do you wanna sa you can modify it 30 years later? Do you say that? plz enlighten me, master, and what you shall say shall remain here, for eveyone to see. So ... you think you can adulter a notarial protocol 30 years later right? Is that what you are saying son?--Noah Bernstein (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will provide you that information, if you provide me, the exact ultimae primary sources you use, for Baron. You have a secondary source, which is worthless. And when it comes to French Law, we could really dig into that. BUt when it comes to an Act, son, even administrators know, what an act or notarial protocol is. So it is fine, go there and say , they put information on the medical career of Michael, in the year 1504. Yu basically do not answer to this. Cause it is not the truth, what you care of. You are just basically repeating yes, that your information, same information was copied from one place to another a thousand times, since castro y Calvo, invented it. So yea, it is a solid and repeated lie. Can you tell me anything on this?, Can you tell me anything on Kottek? You assume in the minutes I own he did not say what I say? I can email him. You should pay more atention to your souces, popular amateur biographies, which do not go to the archive sources, so basically what you have is a legend. Do you wanna keep repeating it again until everyone notices what goes on? Do it. Or even better, just keep writing anc copiying the same tale untill someone comes with a new document. Then I guess you wil have a seizure. And, no offence, but it is a worthless attempt. Cause what matters on the internet is Relevance. Shalom.--Noah Bernstein (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia is not based on primary sources, and we are talking here about what Wikipedia allows and what doesn't. If you want to have a personal exchange of views on the topics and discuss primary sources with me, I will be happy to have a conversation with you based on mutual respect. However the Wikipedia has its own rules, and one of them is about reliable and verifiable secondary sources. That is why I am asking you to provide that information. And BTW, Servetus' converso origin does NOT depend on the Tudela hypothesis. I am not questioning the converso origin of Servetus' grandmother. I never did. I do question that the Tudela hypothesis as explained by Echeverría (there have been other Tudela hypotheses before, this is just the last one), has any solid ground. But the converso origin on the mother's mother's side is not questioned. --Jdemarcos (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is clear Jaume. What source does Baron refer? Can u Tell me? Castro Y calvo, do you wana tell me what Castro Y calvo refer? That document. That Falsification. do you have anything else to say?. Servetus Converso orgin is way better explained by THE tudela hypothesis, as well as his whole education, and many other things you do not know,and that some rabbis know here. For it was the last heaven for Jewish and Conversos, and many from Aragon. You keep saying the Tudela Hypothesis. It is the New Idenity Hypotehsis. And also explains, Michael's theology. As I said "I am not Servetus. I take the person of Servetus for confronting Calvin" + " Jesus takes the person of Christ" and like that in almost any page of the errors of the Trinity. And yes , a solid ground is, letters, which is all where " Servetus" shows up as " Servetus". You cannot explain the notarial protocol, you cannot tell me a thing on the "Person" use, you cannot show me an inspected document. That if we do not talk of the absurd theory of Bainton, saying he acts as " from navarre" but referring an aragon DIOCESE, a not Navarrese but Spanish Father, and choosing the dangerous city of Tudela instead of Pamplona. Basicaly the old theory is not a theory, it is an invention. His data is a mix of Navarre and Spanish data, declaring he is from Spanish Nation, being his first reference to Spain, in 1537, and not to Navarre. Not a clue right? It makes no sense cause it is simply true. Not invented. I don't think we can discuss on this, cause we both think the same. One says it and the other will always deny it. Farewell, I have better things to do --Noah Bernstein (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read your slandering comment in the CoI noticeboard. Of course I get no money from the MSI, it is very sad that you happily jump on that wagon. Sorry for believing I could have an educated conversation with you. I will not make the same mistake again. Bye. --Jdemarcos (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What is not educated is to accuse someone , of something you do yourself. You are not educated either, I'm afraid in the primary sources languages, like Greek or Latin, or Hebrew. so there is nothing I could discuss with you and the scholarly aspects of the documents, even if you would be ready for learning. You are not here for learning, but for getting money from the institute. Bye is good.--Noah Bernstein (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Who am I accusing of what? It's fine with me that Echeverría writes books and gets any money from them (I doubt it anyway, not because of his capacity, but because this is not a popular subject and sales are naturally scarce). I have never criticized Echeverría for writing books. I think that you are misguided when you try to make the world believe that Echeverría has solved the Great Servetian Mystery. He hasn't. And don't worry: his "research" will be answered in due time and in full, and his faulty results will be revealed for what they really are. Have no doubt about it. --Jdemarcos (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't cause .. you say so? Please son. He has solved the great Servetian Mistery, Yes, and many other things. Do not worry, he will answer back, with primary sources, as he did, against the consensus of your institute, on the Jewish converso Heritage, as he did with the Ghost bible of your friend Alcala, or as he did with the documentation of Juan Servetus. Have no doubt about it. You attacked him from the start. He is not a " scholar" you said, and you are? can you speak latin? Greek? Hebrew? have you studied paleohraphy? Bye son. Have no doubt about it. The one who has fault is you, to Servetus. YOu cannot tell me of the Navarre hypothesis, you cannot tell me of the Persons use. Do not waste my time. Keep getting money for your " scholar" books. Jealousy is poison, and apparently you are agonizing. I am sorry for you. Learn to respect the same people who refer you in their books, as Gonzalez did in his Love for Truth, you appear twice, in a good way. Your ways are not exactly as gentle as his. Bye, and just do not waste my time anymore.

You are mistaken (as usual). My first book on Erasmus and Servetus was my Master's thesis, written independently from the Michael Servetus Institute for the University of Barcelona (UAB). Then the MSI kindly offered to make a modest edition. If you were Spanish you would know that there is only one Spanish organization that cares about research on Michael Servetus, i.e. the Michael Servetus Institute in Villanueva (there is another that is international in scope, the Servetus International Society, actually a split from the MSI). My commitment to the study of Servetus is because of my Unitarian beliefs, not because of any attachment to Aragon or to the MSI. My research up to now had never been about Servetus' origins, but about his work and his theology. As for Echeverría, he has every right to publish wherever he wishes, but if you guys are blaming the MSI for getting support from the government of Aragon, Echeverría may be blamed exactly for the same reasons regarding the government of Navarre. Then, why do you criticize the MSI for that reason but support Echeverría and do not care about the same reason? And what do you think about those international scholars who write about Servetus and support the Villanueva origin? By the way, the Villanueva origin is not "sponsored" by the MSI. Actually, it is just the opposite: the MSI was founded in 1976 because Villanueva was known as Servetus' birthplace, and Villanueva was given the title of "villa" (town) for being Servetus' birth place in the 1930s, many years before the MSI ever came to exist. As for your personal attacks, I do not care about them anymore. You don't know me, therefore you don't know what you're talking about. Only prejudice and biased thinking lead your judgement and your insults. They simply show your moral quality as a person, nothing more. --Jdemarcos (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked your preparation, you made sure everyone could check it online, also even I could know any detail of yourself if I wish so. your moral quality as a person is shown in your editions, amputating Servetus as much as you can for your own interest, that and the way you referred to that researcher show a personal hate, and perhaps I will write about it, for you accepted to be Jaume de Marcos, pretty clearly and the account is old, so you are actually publishing stuff. So you accept you had your books paid. You cannot at the same time, say it is unfair for us to accuse you of one thing, as money issues and books, and say then Gonzalez deserves the same, when it was YOU, who started it. This stone was thrown at you. For sure gonzalez was accused of the same thing, by YOU, repeatedly. Then some of your stones came back at you. If you start trying to jump on those wagons, you deserve to get what you got. You repeatedly used that reasoning, now, it is back against you, for you did the same, and more. Yes I do know all that concerning the Villa Title, and how the funds from the Authonomical community relies on this Titles. So if it is proved not to be the birthplace of Servetus, less funds for Villanueva de Sijena. It just reinforces my reasoning. We think differently. Bye--Noah Bernstein (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that I care a bit about what you can tell to the Hebrew University? If you were a scholar, perhaps I would care, but you are just a Echeverría fanboy, only willing to cheerlead his achievements. And don't worry: the ISHM has already been informed about what you and your group are doing in the Wikipedia about Echeverría, and they will be more updates soon. Unfortunately all that you are doing is actually working against Echeverría's international prestige (if he had any), because it shows the kind of people he is getting support from, and how they can manipulate and distort the facts just to implement personal attacks and slander in Wikipedia for Echeverría's greater "glory". BTW, now that the nth complaint and demand has been ignored and archived, don't even try to manipulate the Servetus page again for your interest, or you will be reported for improper editing behaviour and this time I will show no more tolerance of your insulting and slandering. You and your fan friends are warned. Bye forever. --Jdemarcos (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you will care, And yea I am a Scholar. The important thin is what the Hebrew University will tell to Spanish Jewish Societies, and has told, and not what I did, three days ago. You are not nor you have the last idea. I will publish about you and your behavior, and in Trotta as well, where you will not publish anymore. My demand was archived cause I did not even care of opening a dispute, you are a translator right?That explains why u cannot explain the " Persons" concept, nor you know about dioceses, nor you have primary sources, you basically make politics. It is always good to get a rejection from the ISHM, for a worthless institution. You have worked for an institution that tried to hide a lot of stuff and getting economical benefits, Gonzalez was a trustee when you were nothing in that place. Go home, and learn some History, French, Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, then you come to me. your number is 34 616666295 right? I can figure out all about you, and we will meet in person do not worry. In Barcelona Sabadel right? then we will be able to discuss, and chec what you have to say, but this time with Luis Miguel Lopez Garcia. We also finished a letter for the Uniatarian community, for the ICUU ( ex secretary right) and for the headquarters in Boston, for I have to visit Rev Morales ( friend of yours too right?). This world is so small De Marcos, and it has no room for miserable behaviors, Talk to you soon, but in person, all your replies will be ignored, you have crossed the line and requires direct action, of me, Trotta, and 7 of the Jewish Societies of Spain. Bye forever ( but just online) .--Noah Bernstein (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)