User talk:Purrhaps

Welcome!

Hello, Purrhaps, 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
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a friendly response. Sourcing & providing the reader with unpopular viewpoints, sure brings out the bullies. -- Purrhaps (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please see help:referencing for beginners and help:footnotes Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Archangel has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Archangel was changed by Purrhaps (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.867232 on 2016-08-29T10:00:22+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Archangel 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 are 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. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 29 August 2016 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Purrhaps reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: ). Thank you. GAB^gab 16:11, 29 August 2016 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Purrhaps reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: ). Thank you. TimothyJosephWood 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page, rather than complain you'd do better thinking about why 2 editors reported you for editwarring, ending up with your being blocked. Use the article talk page when your block expires, don't go back to adding the same stuff. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Propitiation are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purrhaps (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propitiation & Atonement are complicated, deeply ingrained subjects & words. Only comprehensive, mind-expanding input will help to reach factual rather than emotional info for Wike readers. That was my intent & attempt.

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Yom Kippur. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. I also prefer CE, but you can't change this in someone else's edits, please fix it. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purrhaps (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I was only changing AD to CE in my own contributions.

Purrhaps (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my contributions are the result of a lot of study, attempting to provide intelligent-summary info, to help the reader see past sectarian bias & propaganda. And I provide sources -- especially Scripture sources which should qualify as "reliable".

Looking again, that might be Debresser's fault, interpolating posts that way is confusing and it looks as though your post is his, so I've struck through my post. Scripture is often not a reliable source for articles, we need reliable sources commenting on scripture as scripture is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY and particularly footnote 3. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yom Kippur, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop vandalizing the Yom Kippur article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sooo confused. I am not vandalizing. It is impossible that the writing before my editing is factual or verifiable. Please have someone prove their statements because a 1510CE invention (i.e. atonement) cannot literally mean something written almost 3,000 years ago.

1) Please sign your name after your comments not before. 2) The literal definition of Yom Kippurim is Day of Atonement. There is nothing to discuss or no Latin or Greek gobbledygook that changes what a word means. Your edits are disruptive and if you continue, I will seek a block to prevent you from hurting the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks about signing. It's impossible that you are correct about the "literal definition" because kippur means "to cover". No scholar would say that is its literal defintion. Many would SAY (uninformedly) that that what it means. Can you show verifiable proof of your own statement?. Purrhaps (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the dictionary, they literally have literal definitions. I'm not going to continue with your inane conversation. The literal definition of Yom Kippur is Day of Atonement. You should learn some Hebrew before you try to say that words mean other than what words mean. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, Sir Joseph's translation of Gen.6:14 must = Make an ark of gopher wood, don't COVER it, just ATONE it inside & out with ATONEMENT, not BITUMIN. ~ The ark won't float, but there will be a lot of thick, accusatory, obfuscatory SMOKE (& mirrors). --Purrhaps (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur

Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:FORUM. Your thoughts about the meaning of "Yom Kippur" and the word atonement are just that -- your thoughts. Unless you can cite reliable sources that support your interpretation, nobody is particularly interested in your thoughts, and they're not appropriate for the article's talk page. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just my thoughts. My use of atonement all my life, was changed this past January when I did research, counted to 3,000 & used common sense to overcome emotional attachment to an English word invented around 1510 CE. Any site like Bible Gateway or BlueLetterBible quickly helps the reader to learn about the 4 related Hebrew words. ~ BASIC meaning of Hebrew Scripture words = COVER (not 1510 CE atonement invention). ~ Gen.6:14 ~ Make ...an ark of gopher wood ... COVER (H3722) it inside & out with PITCH (H3724). ~/~ H3722 kaphar (found 102x) = to cover ~/~ H3724 kopher (17x) = bitumen, a cover, etc. ~/~ H3725 kippur (8x) = cover (from H3722) ~/~ H3727 kapporeth (27x) = (exclusively, the pure gold) lid cover {improperly translated as Mercy Seat}. ~ No one before 1510 heard of the word atonement. Modern dictionaries (secular & religious) just parrot what folks have heard since birth -- including me. My point is a (red-stained) ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. --Purrhaps (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to get it. This is the English Wikipedia, and the English translation of Yom Kippur is Day of Atonement. It's irrelevant when that word came into being, it's in use now in English. I agree with you, in the "olden days" the Jews didn't speak English and didn't call it Day of Atonement, they spoke in the vernacular. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English Wiki??? ~ Then why (since I started editing) was the "Day of Atonement" article shut down & redirected to "Yom Kippur"??? -- Purrhaps (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Our articles should be based on what reliable sources say about a subject. Our own analyses are original research and can't be used. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. Why was the English-Titled article folded into a Hebrew-Titled article? -- Purrhaps (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any 'English article' that was 'folded in' to the article about the Hebrew term. Day of Atonement and day of atonement have only ever been redirects to Yom Kippur.

I'm fairly certain that until recently, we all could read about the D-of-A under its English title. Regardless, why are we reading about this subject under a Hebrew Name? -- in the context of Sir Joseph's point. -- Purrhaps (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably false. There has been no previous article content under 'Day of Atonement'[1][2], nor any relevant page moves from 'day of atonement' to 'Yom Kippur'.[3] The article is listed under its common name. Whilst there might be an argument that both names are common, it would be inappropriate to have two articles about the same subject under different titles, as it would become a POV fork.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, the word atone means to cover [the cost]. The word was coined (there's probably a pun about cost somewhere in there) as a translation of kippur in the sense of making amends, an equal payment (specifically for the superstitious notion of 'cancelling sins'). Usage of kaphar for the various 'sin offerings' throughout Leviticus makes it clear that the covering is not literal, but instead means to cover the cost of their 'sins'. It is in this manner that kaphar (and related forms) are translated as atone (and related forms), that is, when it is used as a metaphor (i.e. the priests did not cover people with bitumen). It would indeed be incorrect if someone claimed that atone were a transliteration of kippur (neither is cover), but it is indeed a literal meaning. The year in which the word atone was introduced into English is entirely irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues if Wiki says: Yom Kipper, also known as Day of Atonement, or commonly referred to as.... BUT it’s terrible scholarship to say Kippur comes from a root that means "to atone”; or that Y.K. LITERALLY means D-of-A -- under an Etymology heading no less !!!

“Yom Kippur (OFTEN mistranslated as the Day of Atonement)”.-- see The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New RSV, 2010, 4th Edition, edited by Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, Carol Ann Newsom, Pheme Perkins, p.166 ~ see Google Books

“Yom Kippur is FREQUENTLY mistranslated as the “Day of Atonement” -- see Torah with a Twist of Humor, by Joe Bobke, p.393

“Therefore, the actual translation and purpose of Yom Kippur should be Day of Covering” -- see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-isaacs/yom-kippur-not-for-atonem_b_3890544.html (6th para.)

"The root of kippur is kapar (Strong’s 3722), which means covering. Yom Kippur is the Day of Covering. Atonement is another word entirely, with different etymological roots." -- see https://landofhoneyblog.blogspot.ca/2014/10/do-we-need-still-yom-kippur --Purrhaps (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please note that citing Bible verses at an editor as if those verses apply to that editor as either an insult or a warning may constitute a personal attack. You should only cite Bible verses at Wikipedia Talk pages as they relate to article content. As you may not have been aware of this, I will not report the matter to admins at this time. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, that as a "newbie" there are tons of Wiki-landmines that I don't know about. But it's pretty ironic that you take personal offense. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_(archangel), instead of focusing on the "Point" you attacked the "Person" by writing: "Is English your first language?" I should research your history, but at this point I won't. -- Purrhaps (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit to which you refer, I asked if English were your first language becuase you demonstrated an incorrect understanding of English nouns and adjectives, including a malformed analogy. However, the remark was only an aside, and was stated after quite clearly indicating the 'point' in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarification, the reason I asked whether English is your first language was not, as you suggest, an 'attack', but because I was hopeful that there was a reason other than theological bias that was motivating your preference for the improper use of the word 'scripture'. Though you did not explicitly answer the question, it seems clear that the reason for your preferred term is not one of linguistic unfamiliarity. Hence, the 'point' remains that the ordinary meaning of the adjective scriptural is not overshadowed by an arbitrary theological insinuation that it supposedly implies some kind of 'divine truth'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How you hinglish guise say it? ~ "I believe you, where thousands wouldn't."-- Purrhaps (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment implies that you think my native language is Hindi. Or you're just trying to be funny. Either way, you have failed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, dude. You made this an issue. -- Purrhaps (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you have learned not to assert theological bias in articles and not to make religious judgements of editors at Talk pages, then it's all good.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, truce is declared. You have been a difficult but helpful mentor. --Purrhaps (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur content issue

Please make a statement at the dispute resolution noticeboard within 24 hours, or I will have to close the thread due to failure to follow up your response to discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]