User talk:PiCo/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Book of Job/Psalms

Hi PiCo, it seems there are a couple of articles we have some different opinions about at the moment. I haven't yet had time to contribute to the discussion at the Chronology of the Bible talk page. But on the book of Job, I and another editor have given policy reasons for removing a paragraph that we believe is not presented in a neutral way, and your edit response in reverting was "Nah"? Perhaps you could try to explain in your edit summary your reasoning, or engage in some discussion, rather than simply reverting? Or if you think the information should be included, try to rewrite it in a NPOV way?

I have to admit it's not the first time I've found one of your edit summaries condescending and unhelpful. On book of Psalms you edited with "Lord knows what that was trying to say" when the editor (not me) had less than four edits previously given a reasonably good explanation in their edit summary of what they were trying to achieve (there is no separate article for "psalm" and yet the psalms article gives no explanation of what a psalm is or a link to a definition).They may not have done a perfect job in expressing what they included, but a couple of others of us were trying to improve it before you removed it. I still think it's a point worth pursuing and will consider how to do so more clearly, so if you have any ideas feel free to let me know. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Left a reply for you on my talk paGe, thanks! Melcous (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration

I've put in significant work and cited reliable sources. It is impolite and inappropriate for you to simply revert all my work. This is a collaborative project, no single editor owns an article, as you surely know. As I said explicitly in my comment, if you disagree with certain sentences, then edit those. Wholesale reversion is inappropriate. ProfGray (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gog and Magog 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:

• [M. R. De Haan]]'s ''The Signs of the Times''; [[Tim LaHaye]]'s ''Are We Living in the End Times?'').{{citation needed|date=May 2014}} It was openly advocated in 1971 by the then [[Governor of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gog and Magog may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• will breach through the barrier. In Surah 21:95-96 [[Al-Anbiya|Surat al-Anbiya]], "The Prophets") God warns of "prohibition upon [the people of] a city which We have destroyed, that they shall not
• Van Donzel|Schmidt|2010|p=74}} Tradition normally placed the mountains of this barrier "towards [[Armenia and Azerbaijan,"{{sfn|Van Donzel|Schmidt|2010|p=82}} but the 14th-century traveller [[Ibn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for contributing to article Chronology of the Bible. I know you were hindered from editing the article, but you did a fine job anyway. Keep up the good work, cheers! JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Books of Kings

PiCo,
Hi. While the Christian Bible has divided it into two books, in Judaism, Melakhim (Kings) (part of Nevi'im (Prophets)),is a single book. Take a look at the table in Books of the Bible.
Best,
--Ira Goldstein (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oversight

FYI: Wikipedia:Oversight - for when you accidentally edit without logging in. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sons of Noah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Citation Barnstar
		You are doing wonderfully careful work at Yahweh - Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple citations reduced

Hi. You recently removed as overkill three out of four citations to a single statement in the lead of Goliath, and I restored them, saying they were necessary, in part for future editing of the article. I have now re-removed three of those four citations and relocated them to support the appropriate, newly created section. Thanks for your patience! Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew - 50 CE date

First let me say that I strongly support your 85 CE date. If Dunn is correct, the Oral Tradition would has lasted until 70 CE. Then with the fall of the Temple would have come the beginnings of the Talmud and the proto-gospels. This makes your 85 CE date very very likely! However the challenge Casey has put to us is formidable. Indeed the 50 CE may very well be the majority date in 2015. Because of the many reliable sources that put forward the 50 CE date we must put aside our own intrests for the sake of the encyclopedia and adhere NPOV. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WikiBullying and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hi PiCo, the Arbitration Committee has declined the WikiBullying arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Palestine

Hi PiCo, thanks for your message re this article, and for your compliments re the improvements. I agree with the sentiment of your comments on the talk page and would encourage your edits on the topic as you see fit. My main focus has been to ensure that all areas of the topic are treated only in a summarized fashion at that article, with detail on other sub-articles where needed. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

gog and magog

"I just reverted an edit of yours at Gog and Magog, for reasons given in the edit summary - it was pretty hard to read for anyone not already acquainted with Rabbinic literature, and seemed to cover material already dealt with in the second para of the following sections. However, if you could do some research into more recent sources, it could lead to a useful stand-alone section section on Jewish treatment of Gog/Magog through to the modern period. Let me know if you'd like to take this on. "

- I would like to do this; I do feel that it important to have more detail on this topic. Hope to get time to take further look at it this week. Look forward to doing something with this topic with you! RK (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Daniel (biblical figure)

Thanks for taking responsiblity for the IP edit. It does, however, mean you have made four reversions in less than 24 hours: [1][2][3][4] - I suggest you self-revert. Look, it's pretty clear that your bold addition to the page has been challenged - you need to get consensus on the talk page first. StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

Daniel-Intro

lol,   — Jason Sosa 17:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Polemic vs Analysis

Hi PiCo

I read through some of the comments on the articles you work on and they came across as more polemic, than analysis based. Meaning that what you would allow and write were to convince someone of a POV, not represent the views that are out there. It also seems like any opinions that disagree with the ones you accept you mark as fringe and not worth a voice. You do a dis-service to Wikipedia.

From reading your page looks like others have noticed to. If you want to polemic, you should have a blog, for Wikipedia you should serve something greater, information. You might say here you are serving the truth... but it is not your job here to represent truth... it is to represent information about what many people, even those who disagree with you think is the truth.

I'm sorry if my edits offend you, but I always try to source them from reliable academic sources. I very rarely mark anything as fringe, although I do try to weight up between majority and minority viewpoints. Perhaps you could get yourself an account? PiCo (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Isaiah 7:14

PiCo, It looks like the third opinion request was closed, because a third editor was already active. That is me or you I guess. Basileias (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Basileias, I don't think anyone should interpret me as an uninvolved third party - I think they may be in error. Would you like to try to open it again? PiCo (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure. I wish MM would just discuss on the talk page. Frankly, if MM is going to ignore us both, I am inclined to template them up the 3, 4 and 5th level and that will get attention. Unfortunately, not good attention for them. Basileias (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Almah

When things appear to have settled down, I wanted to find out if you would think about and consider removing the Almah information into the Almah article. I say that because I theorize it might reduce squabbling over the Isaiah 7:14 article. Just think about it for now. Thanks. Basileias (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@BasileiasThat sounds like an attractive idea - it would cut out the content forking that currently concerns me. But there'll always be an impulse for editors to re-introduce it - after all, we wouldn't have an article on Isaiah 7:14 if it didn't mention the word almah.

I wanted to give way a bit to letting the smoke clear. Now that it looks clear, would you be agreeable to removing the almah information from the Isaiah 7:14 article? My intent is to place it on the almah Talk page for further review and potential assimilation. I think Isaiah 7:14 has significant themes that are outside the Almah issue. Like starting with king Ahaz. I believe the article should continue to open with that.

If you are in agreement with this, my first step would be to leave a description on the Isaiah 7:14 Talk Page. This would give other editors a chance to support, or even oppose. If there is significant opposition to this, I am fine with letting things stay as they are. Thank you. Basileias (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Basileias Go for it - your approach to editing sounds very collegial and sensible to me.PiCo (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Started

I did not move as much as I thought I would to the talk page of almah. I also combined a repeated paragraph in I7:14. I think the I7:14 article is flowing much better without the side distraction of almah.

If you do not have additional input, in a while, would you want to consider changing the primary almah source to Moyise? Basileias (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

G'Day!

Just found your message. I have been very busy and could't quite handle Wikipedia for a while. Everything is going fine. Great Italian restaurant a few doors away and delicious coffee shop near the convenience store. River to walk by. Fantastic park. Have made a few friends. Do come and stay! Amandajm (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Virgin birth of Jesus

I have reverted your deletion of words by Aquinas. There may be other objections, but you can't remove stuff because you think a theologian is not a reliable source. And the idea the Thomas Aquinas was not a biblical scholar is ridiculous. Myrvin (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Psalms

Hi PiCo, you deleted a paragraph from the Psalms article with the edit summary "a fringe view" but it was a longstanding paragraph about the superscriptions sourced to multiple references, giving an overview of names included in the superscriptions and then giving a range of different views on what those attributions mean. Did you delete the wrong paragraph, or did you mean to delete only part of it? I would like to restore it, but am unclear on your reasoning here. (There are other more recent additions that I might be inclined to see as "fringe" views but I'm not sure how that one is?) Thanks Melcous (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melcous. The "fringe view" is that Dividic authorship of those psalms ascribed lidawid is "The most natural way of understanding these attributions." That's a misquote from the source, Geoffrey Grogan's "Psalms", which actually says authorship is a most natural way of understanding the ledawid superscriptions. In context, Grogan is clearly saying that he understands why people would would understand ledawid in this way. He then goes on to trace the 19th century consensus that none of them were by David, and then says that during the 20th this consensus was wound back to an extent so that today :many scholars" accept that "some" may be from David though "others" deny this.

If you want to keep that second para, I'd suggest deleting that sentence and keeping the one at the end, which is also from Grogan. The two paras should probably be merged, since the division disrupts the sourcing (I believe the entire first para is sourced from Hayes, who appears as note 6 in the second para). But the entire debate over Davidic authorship is way out of proportion - there are 150 psalms, only 73 of which carry the ledawid superscription, and even supporters of David authorship only apply it to some of those (no indication how many). There's a separate section further down called "King David and the Psalms", and I'd cut the "ascriptions" section off at the second sentence of the second para at the latest. PiCo (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Guénon's source on "Gog and Magog"

Hello,

Among many others: [5]. If you disagree, then engage in TP discussion please instead of reverting. Thanks. 176.182.231.162 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hello, I just wanted to advise/ask you to please refrain from "copyediting" other people's posts. Talk page messages don't have to be up to standards, and it can be considered rude to touch other's messages. Formatting (like indenting, or making sure someone's post doesn't break the page) and such things are fine, but it's better to avoid correcting unimportant typos and capitalization. And sometimes the way that people type can say a few things about them, so it's better to keep their message as it is. The relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You did it again. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sfn stuff

Hi PiCo

I've been trying to be a good boy and use more SFN footnotes but I immediately come up against the problem of books with multiple authors. The page on this does not seem to have info on this situation. I tried an example but it picks up only one author: [6]

(does that link work?)

Anyway, this information is probably somewhere but knowing you were an avid user of SFNs I thought you might be able to advise me how to handle this.

Lots of phenomenal editing you're doing here, by the way, as usual.

--Rbreen (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you know what - I may have solved it. Should have read more carefully. --Rbreen (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Colette 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:

• ==Early life, marriage to Willy, and the Claudine series 1873-1906)==

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego

Youths described as "Jewish". Isn't this anachronistic? Editor2020, Talk 02:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Hebrew"? ("And the Hebrew children in the Fiery Furnace and why not every man...")PiCo (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn. Other Candidate

Reference to your edit Dhul-Qarnayn..Other Candidates, please guide me which type of support there should be?--Ameen Akbar (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear PiCo, Thank you so much for revert back the changes. In my opinion, this is not important that a thinker or writer must have university degree holder. This is not important who said, Important is that what he said. Anyhow thanks again.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear PiCo, reference to your edit. I dont understand what the real problem is? First you said information are too long, i should precise it. I did and write them in two lines. Then you said scholar is not qualified due to lack of higher education and now here is third reason. Dear wikipedia is platform of information with source reference. You should add any information which is associated with subject. Let the reader decide which one is authentic. Here in this article more than half dozen names are candidate as Dhul-Qarnayn. No one can say his point of view is 100% true either presenter is highly qualified or not. In this article i have added an information and i have right to add. Reference article has been also published in Pakistani newspaper in 1995 and published in a book in 1996. I have added sourced which is easy to access. In my opinion its deserve two lines in subject article. please dont remove again and again. Kindly revert this change and oblige.Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you soo much for rewriting is for me, and sorry for mistake, i disturb you instead of other user. Just want to say please clear your concepts about formal education and knowledge. We should judge some's presented idea not his personality or formal education. Prophet of Muslims Muhammad did not got any formal education in any institution. Anybody who interested in Islam thinks on Quran, not the formal education of Prophet Muhammad. You can also search on google about many people who changed the world without any formal education. Secondly, please consider, Its not criteria if only one person said something so it could be wrong. first time one person said this one Dhul-Qarnayn, then other one said no this is Dhul-Qarnayn. This is continuations process started with one person. Thanks again, you are the most helping admin, i have ever meet on English Wiki.Ameen Akbar (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You are being unhelpful to believers

I am not shore you understand, but people want to believe. This is a people's encyclopedia I am not saying we have to say Prophecy has to be considered 100% true but people want to have an opportunity or a place to believe. that the bible is fake is clearly not simple "here" and "here" I am not saying we have to consider the bible 100% real but lets try not to keep pages that explicitly say the bible is fake without a shadow of a doubt. You have to let things be a little more loose, writing "but that is not the case" or other clear statement's that it is fake isn't being considerate to people's rights if they want to believe (again it isn't proven that religion is fake). I think it is perfectly reasonable to leave certain statements vague or general allowing belief to be possible. As I wrote on Yahweh we don't have to be anti religious. OK this is my opinion I only hope you would give it some consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadya goan (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC) sorry I didn't sign Sadya goan (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The question is which believers? There are so many, including individuals who clearly do not want to believe in anything. So far as I can tell, PiCo is (or might be) a believer of some sort himself. I know I am. But honestly the worst thing we can do to prop up believers of any sort is to try to bend our content in favor of them. Several believers, including Bart Ehrman, stopped being believers when they, basically, found out that what they had been told was not consistent with the modern best academic views. The last thing we would want to do is basically create more of such individuals from any group, so, on that basis, the best way for any of us to proceed is by adhering to one of the five pillars of wikipedia as per WP:PILLARS, that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are an incredible number of encyclopedias and encyclopedic type sources out there, some more general and some more reliable than others. The best thing we can do for all individuals is to present the best current academic views on anything, which ultimately isn't that different from presenting the still-accurate material from the greatest variety and range of reference sources in accord with our own policies regarding WP:WEIGHT and other concerns. If we make ourselves too clearly slanted to one side or another, and become publicized for that, that won't help anyone's beliefs either. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The question is not which believers. You can not write about what you Believe but bring all the different views. Facts can not be determined according to someone's view. You are not even bringing anything that you don't believe in. That is not knowledge and that is not information. Like i wrote to you: The exodus page is horrible If you compare the page in Hebrew-where people brought ALL the views of ALL historians-you might think the English page was written by the KGB. People are supposed to have all information and make up their own mind! There is a separate page in Hebrew that is "Biblical criticism about the Exodus story" that brings dozens of different findings and theories. I want to translate it and edit it into the English page. Laylaor (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And you don't write pages according to which "individuals you want to create" KGB indeed. Laylaor (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I see this is going on in a lot of the pages about religion so may i add: Indoctrinating people is wrong whether you are creating a cult of believers or a cult of non believers. The only way to fight that is to give all the information and all the views. Every person has the right to freedom of information,freedom of speech and after they make of their mind- freedom of religoun.

Laylaor (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

edits

hello. The addition was very valid, needed, and sourced. You should not have totally removed the hard work I put in, that sourced, and contextual. The whole article had nothing regarding the explanations given as to why there was outside verification, and so the article was arguably incomplete and lacking. Your edit rationale was totally invalid, given the context of the paragraph and the "possible explanations" about "figures" etc. What you did was extremely disrespectful and unwarranted. And not something I would put up with, frankly. This is a wiki. You don't own any article, and the addition (which I put a lot of effort and tweaking and work int) was totally valid, sourced, and in context, and also arguably very needed. The article was not complete without this well-known explanation and matter. If you remove again, you'll get reverted again. You were totally out of line with this. Again, sir, this was sourced and in context...no valid reason to totally remove, or suppress, because of "I don't like" reasons. Very disrespectful...and against WP policy). Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, PiCo did everything 100% according to the rules while Gabby Merger is the one who has been edit warring (reverting against consensus three times already), pushing a fringe view, attacking other editors and violation WP:OWN. That makes the accusation above seem downright outlandish. Jeppiz (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dating the Bible 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:

• redacted into a single collection in second-temple times.<ref>C. Westermann, ''The Living Psalms'' (trans. J.R. Porter; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989; M.E. Tate, ''Psalms 51–100'' (Waco, TX:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dating the Bible may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• redacted into a single collection in second-temple times.<ref>C. Westermann, ''The Living Psalms'' (trans. J.R. Porter; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989; M.E. Tate, ''Psalms 51–100'' (Waco, TX:
• one) may have reached its final form as late as the Ptolemaic period, 300-200&nbsp;BCE.[[sfn|Grabbe|2003|p=00}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gog and Magog 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:

• '''Gog''' and '''Magog''' ({{IPAc-en|g|ɒ|g}}; {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|eɪ|g|ɒ|g}}; {{lang-he-n|גּוֹג וּמָגוֹג}} ''Gog u-Magog'', are

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel 4

Materialscientist (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for advice and mediation (if necessary)

Hello, PiCo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Historiador (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Gospel of John

Just want you to know, Bruce is at the end of the bottom...just scroll all the way down. Nice job editing, keep up the good work. Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII - thanks :). I was afraid this was going to be a message telling me what a terrible person I am, as is too often the case :).PiCo (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

PiCo, you've done so well, perhaps I should create an agenda on what you should work on next like Zephaniah or Epistle of Jude. But no seriously, you're doing a great job...far better than what I can do on Wikipedia. The most effort of mass changes in articles iv done are only Aristobulus I and Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Books of Moses. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Norodom Sihanouk

Hi Pico, thanks for your prompt response. As a matter of principle, I do not "own" any articles on Wikipedia for that matter, including the above article. I noted that you have made some copyediting on the article, and I do appreciate the spirit of your effort.

However, what concerned me was that in some cases (not only for this edit), attempts to shorten phrases can cause inevitable or unintentional changes to the meaning. For example, your reedited [Sihanouk's official title as king between 1941-1955 and again from 1993 to 2004 was "Preah Bat Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk Varman".[4] Between these two his title was "Samdech Preah Upayuvareach",[21] meaning "The Prince who has been King"], I have to say that from my research, while Sihanouk was given the title "Upayuvareach" in 1955, I can't say whether this title lasted until 1993, when he became King again, or until 1970, when he was deposed from power, and his Cambodian citizenship stripped. I think the best approach is to "present facts as they are". Also sometimes a little extra elaboration pays off to make the contexts less ambiguous.

Another concern which came to my mind was that for your edit [After his abdication in 2004 he given the official title "Preah Karuna Preah Bat ...], editors maybe questioning Who gave him the title. From the sources it states Sihamoni, and this I think, must be made clear. Otherwise, editors may insert a "" template into the text, such as the case of Afonso_de_Albuquerque#Death. I do not want such issues to crop up.

On my part, I'm trying to polish up this article with the hope of making this article FA-worthy, including expanding the content and copyediting. You're welcome to discuss any suggestions or share any research findings with me at any time Mr Tan (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Quirinius

I undid your second edit to Quirinius. The connection to the Luke narrative is significant to the notability of Quirinius, who is otherwise a pretty minor figure in the early principiate, so a couple of sentences seem warranted. I think you also removed more text than intended. However, I could see an argument that the sentence about the timing of events in Luke isn't relevant here. --Amble (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:GBRV made an edit half-way between, which looks good to me. --Amble (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree - if it wasn't for being mentioned in Luke nobody would be bothered with this minor official. PiCo (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Amble (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw that you removed the Greek versions of his name. I responded with some additional info and an (admittedly old) source at Talk:Quirinius. --Amble (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Gospel of John

Hey. A couple of us have, at least I think we do, a puzzle we are working on the Gospel of John Talk Page page. The editor I am in dialog with might be right with what they pointed out. If you have time, would you mind taking a look? There is no edit war, I do not have a side to win, but I think it may need another set of eyes. Would appreciate your thoughts and help on the discussion. Thank you! Basileias (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Jericho

Concerning the blanking of the second paragraph in the Origins and historicity section of the Battle of Jericho page, I have come to the conclusion that the paragraph has little or no merit to the historicity of the battle. The poorly sourced assertions that the battle never took place, and that the biblical narrative exists only for the purposes of "nationalist propaganda" are only shoehorned into the paragraph in order to convince the casual reader that the biblical account is untrue. The "sources" (if you could call them that) used to construct this narrative are incredibly vague and are from people who decided to be against the biblical story before they even began their work.

Furthermore, in the first paragraph of the section, a claim is made that the destruction coincides with a "well-attested Egyptian campaign of that period." This "fact" is inserted in between two other points, one being that the destruction occurred around 1500 BCE, and the other being that Jericho was deserted throughout the mid-late 13th century. The source given for this is one of the erroneous sources used to substantiate the second paragraph of the section, the Dever source. It is, quite possibly, the most unsourced, unacademic, picture-laden children's books I've ever seen written about the period apart from Sunday School books actually written for children. To source the claim about the Egyptian campaign, Dever only says that it's what Kenyon said. Surely she must be talking about the rise of the New Kingdom and the expulsion of the Hyksos, but a source stating such is not given. The source does, however, explicitly state that, "Kenyon... proclaiming herself unencumbered by any 'bible baggage'." This says, at least to me, that they were looking for any indicator that they could possibly find to separate the destruction of Jericho from the only ancient source explicitly detailing its destruction.

This is just bad history. I blanked the second paragraph because its contribution to historicity was little, and only existed to push the poorly sourced idea that the historical conquest of Canaan is unsupported by evidence. If you are going to go so far to make such a claim, in the interest of objectivity, should Rohl's theory regarding chronology not be added as well? If you would say that there is an article for Rohl's theory, I would respond by saying that there is a page for the other as well. If the interest is in good history, then why was my citation needed taken out of the first paragraph on what I previously addressed? I gave an explanation for that. A source that is unsourced is not a source. If I linked a blog post as a source, would it then substantiate any claim I could make? No. This section of the article is trash.

Edit: I'm leaving the page as it is. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this. You seem to be a great Wikipedia user, so I'm hoping by not continuing this edit war with you, you will be the better person and abandon the Dever source, that second paragraph (or edit it substantially), and improve the quality of the page. The page cannot get better by me just blanking things. I know you could source the Egyptian campaign claim through some of the sources on Amenhotep I's page or another having to do with an earlier pharaoh of the 18th dynasty.

Talk at Genesis creation narrative

PiCo, I don't know if you've seen this, but there is some talk going on at: [7] which might interest you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Gospel of John

PiCo, in your extensive edits of this article, you've left a half-finished sentence in the table in the section John and the Synoptics under the heading Discrepancies. There's also a subheading below this, The Johannine Literature, which has no content.

Could you clean these up, please? Chris55 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Book of Job footnotes

I was fixing some broken references at Book of Job, and I noticed that the shortened footnotes reading "Barton 2008" and "Wheeler 2002" don't have a corresponding bibliography entry. You added these footnotes in January 2014 – can you remember which sources they're intended to refer to? DoctorKubla (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussions

I started a discussion on Talk:The Exodus, because I was clearly arguing against the version that was already there; but on Census of Quirinius and Daniel (biblical figure) you are refusing to discuss/continue to discuss on the talk page even though you are changing wording that has been stable for at least a month. What's with that? StAnselm (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@St I think Census of Quirinius needs to go to dispute resolution, as you and GVBH are bullying other contributors into leaving the article. We can discuss Daniel, the dispute there is quite simple.PiCo (talk)

Once again you are edit-warring at Daniel without discussing on the talk page. And please don't throw around accusations like bullying; it doesn't help things at all. I have had a lot of respect for you as an editor, and I am fast losing it because of your behaviour of the past 24 hours. StAnselm (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

YOU claim to be losing respect for ME! That's rich!PiCo (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Your recent editing history at Daniel (biblical figure) 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.
You have just made your fourth revert - I suggest you self-revert, and actually discuss this on the talk page. StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

Gog and Magog

Hello PiCo, the content added by Xinheart has been removed via discussion in the article's talk page. I don't know if this might interest you, but I thought you should know. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem

Hi, maybe you can offer some advice. I'm struggling to achieve a resolution of an argument at Star of Bethlehem with an editor who behaves childishly, fails to understand the difference between fringe and mainstream scholarly views, and is poorly informed on the subject. He's Also pushing a religious POV. I'm not in good health these days and don't have the energy to fight for good practice. Any suggestions on reasonable dispute resolution? --Rbreen (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yahweh

I apologize for the serious errors i made when editing Yahweh. I was just under the impression that Yahweh is a rendering of YHWH based on the hypothetical pronunciation. Just so you know, I've restored the contents of the old version of the lead. Sorry and Happy Editing!Gonzales John (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And I might just say, just because I accidentally reduced the quality of the lead does not mean you have any reason to remove the additional info I put in the article.Gonzales John (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, I need help, sir. Do you have any suggestions on where we can put this sentence, or is it best to not put it there at all?Gonzales John (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"Yahweh is portrayed by the Hebrew Bible using a combination of Near Eastern imagery associated with El, Baal, and Asherah.(James Anderson, 2015)

I may sound silly here, but isn't Yahweh the god in the Old Testament? I understand that the cults who worshipped YHWH during the Iron Age no longer exist, but, since Jews and Christians identify this deity's name and the deity himself with God, isn't the article lead non-neutral?Gonzales John (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yahweh is the god named YHWH in the Hebrew Bible. He's the direct ancestor of the preset-day god of Judaism, Christianity, and of Islam, but he isn't identical with any of them. All gods evolve over time, because they're human creations and humans change them to meet their changing needs. The Iron Age Yahweh was the national god of Israel and of Judah, and his function was to unite the kingdoms and define them against their neighbours. He had certain characteristics that came from that. When those kingdoms vanished, Yahweh changed, quite radically. For one thing he became the sole god of all the world, the only real god, which had not been the case before. And he kept on changing, and is still changing today. Our article takes up the explanation of the very earliest phase of the history of this god, as an Iron Age national deity.PiCo (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this. What I'm trying to say is: should we consider the Edomite Yahweh and the present-day Yahweh the same, especially since lore about the polytheistic ancient Yahweh (Exodus, etc.) is understood by followers to about the monotheistic present-day Yahweh they worship. If we consider them the same deity then "His origins are mysterious" is non-neutral.Gonzales John (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Gnosticism

Hello PiCo, The reason why you are receiving this message/invite because I hope you might have some interest in possibly help contribute to Gnostic articles via support the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Gnosticism (2nd nomination). I know you edit Christian/biblical related articles, that's why you are receiving this message. I would like your input on my proposed Wikiproject. Thank you & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

What’s this about?

Nevermind. Imahd (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Story of David

You reverted my edits for English language errors and lack of accuracy/typical revisionist slant on the article regarding the story of King David. For instance, in the first paragraph, it indicates Saul was punished for disobeying God's command to destroy the Amalekites man woman and child. This is inaccurate. Saul and the Israelite army did destroy all the Amalekites, man woman and child. THey spared some of the best spoils which they were told to destroy, and they spared the Amalekite king, Agag. Why did you revert my modifications? As well, it currently reads "He find David" in the first paragraph. Are we reverting in favor of incorrect grammar? There were several other inconsistent grammar components, and inaccuracies from the actual written record, which I had attemtped to fix, but which you reverted. I won't waste my time with disputes and debates based on your worldview or attitudes towards the source material, but when improvements are wholesale thrown out for no apparent reason, no wonder people despair of meaningful contribution to this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.221.226 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

FA nomination

Hello PiCo, through your extensive effort in overhauling Gog and Magog, I believed it is time to place the article to FA status. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Gospel of Mark

I am Redrocker. I note that you recently deleted a small addition I made to the entry on the Gospel of Mark. I had thought that the edit was uncontroversial as it is a matter of fact that not all historians or Biblical scholars accept the historicity of Jesus Christ and this fact is obviously relevant and should be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article on the Gospels. Before I re-edit this piece to make it factually correct again I would be interested to know what the reason and justification for your deletion of this information was.

Redrocker (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit of my quote from Augustine's Harmony of the Gospels, but you say you think the ref is in the sfn cites at the end of the sentence - are you checking this in the books cited? Otherwise I think it is worth having the Augustine reference. BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply: I have added a reference to Augustine and the epitomy question a little further down in the article so that the previous text of the introduction remains as it was. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Origins of Judaism page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kingdom of Judah page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Genesis debate

Hi there. I just would like to remark that I am about the WP usage of the term and possible improvements and I am as well trying to introduce structured discussion formats in controversial WP subjects. Take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Maghtas#Lede as an example. I see that e.g. you and User:Hijiri88 have a much deeper understanding of the origin of the biblical texts. But, as said, we need as well to cover the current and historical usage to cover the wider picture. Best regards. Polentarion Talk 11:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Daniel (biblical figure)

I was wondering if we should have an RfC at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure) about whether to attribute "historical fiction" to Coogan - we didn't seem to get anywhere at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)#Historical fiction. StAnselm (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Daniel

Though probably not intended, this edit duplicated the sections of the article, many of them being after the References section. It has been reverted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Saw your comment at the article Talk page after this. Edit conflict kind of explains things.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Funny thought

Your referring to my source as an article made me laugh to myself. Not at your expense, mind you. I just thought it would be really funny if someone published a serious scholarly article on the Gospel of John (or on the New Testament in general) that included one instance each of the words "kooks", "shit" and "bullshit", three instances of "fuck", five instances of "damn" (not related to literal damnation) one off-handed comment about testicles, and the words "if you knew some of the people I have to work with around here you'd know that it is hard not to murder someone". :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PiCo. 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)

Running out of room...

...might be nice (but hey, thanks anyway!) Haploidavey (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

ItaloCelt a sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DifensorFidelis. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

666

Hi, I'm looking forward to editing Wikipedia. Just one question sir. Is the interpretation of 666 as referring to Nero a scientifically/historically credible argument? Please answer, thank you. 124.104.24.121 (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi 124.104.24.121 and welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, Nero is definitely the commonest explanation and is well based in ancient beliefs about the "magical" qualities of numbers. The book by Catherine Cory in the Bibliography seems quite useful for that. Can I suggest you register a user-name for yourself? Regards PiCo (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC

OkaySowingMoon (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Gospel of Mark Page - Changes

Hopefully I get this wiki - talk thing correct...

---

Hi PiCo, I saw you modified my edit. As I am new to Wiki and biblical study in general, I did not want to "undo" your "undo." without trying to understand why you performed the undo.

I made the edit based on the source provided. If you go to the one (and only one) source provided, it specifically identifies "critical" scholarship. This implies that there is another form of scholarship. You identify the opposite as "confessional," but I've heard it referred to as "conservative." The problem with the labels (as I see it) is that it is possible that a scholar can be both "confessional" and "critical." If this is not the case, that is, they are mutually exclusive, then that would explain why the source cited was careful to reference "critical" scholars.

If you agree that these terms are NOT mutually exclusive, then can we really say that MOST biblical scholars are in agreement with the statement on Mark.

How would someone determine that? What percentage of scholarship is "critical" and/or "conservative?" Is there a list of scholars that agree or disagree with various positions and historical developments? I'm serious; I would be interested in that list.

Logically speaking, I would think that it would either remain "critical scholars..." or "some scholars..." What do you think?

Sincerely,

Mcorcora (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned I am new to this study, so if you have a suggested reading list, I would be interested to see your suggestions. Based on your comment, I started searching and I found and interesting blog... I happen to agree and thought I would share. http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/confessional-vs-historical-critical.html

@Mcorcora, I have no idea how scholars decide what the majority of their profession thinks, I just take their word for it. We can say "most biblical scholars..." if we have a source that says that (a reliable source, of course). "Conservative" scholars is a phrase that's used, but I've never quite understood what's meant by it - but it's usually used to contrast with "liberal" rather with "historical-critical" ("critical" for short).

I can't access either of the two sources cited in that last para of the lead any more. Google books does that - it steadily reduces the number of pages available, the more often you visit. If you'd like to do your own research, feel free. I do it by getting a book in google books and typing key words into the search bar at the top of the page. In this case, if you're interested in which gospel was first to be written, the key words would be just that - FIRST GOSPEL. Try to use recent books, so you can reflect recent scholarship. Have a go, it's what makes Wikipedia fun - a learning experience :) PiCo (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mark Goodacre, the blog you linked, is a highly respected scholar, you can trust him.PiCo (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Source needed

I need a source for "Arians were the majority of Christians". See Talk:Arianism#Arians were the majority. Greetings, Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu While looking this up I discovered a man named William Harmless, S.J. - can you imagine introducing yourself, perhaps at US border control, "I'm Harmless!" Some interesting stuff on page 32, tho generally not useful to you (but he writes well).

More useful is this contribution, "Gregory of Tours and "Arianism"", in an edited volume called The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity - see page 333. Sorry I can't give you a direct link, but although the volume I do link to has page numbers, the version that comes up when I search for the quote gives me an edition without. Hope this helps. PiCo (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Darius the Mead

Thanks, I've been meaning to look more at this. Meanwhile, over at Book of Exodus, I've raised some concerns at the talk page. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller My edit summary was inaccurate (I never seem to get them right). I said the source doesn't mention Darius II, but it does. Unfortunately the exact page the editor cites isn't available on google books so I don't know what it says. But I think the real point is this: the actual date of Darius II is irrelevant to the formation of folktales in a Persian milieu from after his time. The Book of Daniel isn't history. PiCo (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

A better reason is that it Whaite, if he says that, is just one voice. See Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller Exactly: we have Collins telling us what the consensus is, and to overturn that we'd need another RS saying that the consensus is something else. Waltke is expressing his opinion, nothing about how widely held it is. Actually I thought that was what I said in my edit summary, but I'm frequently rather lax with them.

As an aside, Waltke's argument is that Daniel was found with the dead sea scrolls, making it canonical in the late 2nd century. That's false logic, there were plenty of books found among the scrolls, not just ones that eventually made it into the Hebrew bible. Nor is it true that it would take time for a book to become accepted - a book like Daniel could become widely accepted instantly (and obviously was). PiCo (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. Your edit summary was "Don't quite see the point of this." I guess I understand it now. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller My edit summary was, as usual, inadequate. Waltke's paper dates from the 70s I think - unsafe to rely on it. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=wfwq-9gaZFcC&pg=PT52&dq=%22While+Ryle%27s+consensus+has+disappeared%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6oMvz7qLTAhXGppQKHeJeDREQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=%22While%20Ryle%27s%20consensus%20has%20disappeared%22&f=false On the formation of the Hebrew canon, see this much more recent overview].PiCo (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Descendants of Adam and Eve for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Descendants of Adam and Eve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Adam and Eve (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gospel of Matthew into Gospel. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Abraham

Hello again. Thanks for your edits. I wondered, is there any reason for the insecable space (nbsp) after God? The other thing: I had an edit conflict and cancelled my change when I tried to fix this a few minutes ago, but note that for page ranges with sfn pp= is usually used rather than p=. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 07:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I know nothing about these technical issues, sorry. If you feel something needs to be fixed please go ahead.PiCo (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again, — PaleoNeonate — 07:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Melchizedek

Undue is not determined by the number of followers a religion has - though you are acting in good faith, referring to a religion as "undue" is extremely offensive. The section has been in the article for a long time. You can not unilaterally delete an entire section from an article without consensus. That is not how we do things. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System - I didn't say that Mormonism is an undue religion (whatever that might mean), I said that because it has so few followers its inclusion in the article is undue weight. Even 15 million is "few" in this context - if we start including every religion's ideas on Mechizedek there's be no end to it. Maybe you could cut the section back to the essence?PiCo (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss with you on talk. The section may be too long, but undue weight is a policy about the inclusion of sources availble. When we try to determine what it due for inclusion, sometimes we consult tertiary sources, like Britannica. In this case Britannica has an entire article on the Melchizedek priesthood in Mormonism. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Denying the resurrection of Jesus in the "Gospel" article

Previously, the article on the Gospel denied the resurrection of Jesus. I changed the article to make it neutral, but you have changed it back to deny the resurrection of Jesus. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. I have started a topic about this on the article's talk page. Grand Dizzy (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Grand Dizzy, this is the sort of thing you should take up on article talk pages, not on personal pages. PiCo (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I did put the topic on the article's talk page, that's what I said. Grand Dizzy (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Post-resurrection appearances

Hi Pico, I am writing you because of your revert of my edits. Your rationale was that my edits were pov. What really happened is that I think the article was/is pov and I tried to balance the tone. The background section is based on a book by Mark Finney, gives weight to his view and takes it matter-of-factly; I think it must be clear that the source isn't expressing a scientific conscensus, but an author. The section also fails to make a distinction between a post-Resurrection and a post-Ascension appearance, so I introduced the concept, backing it with a cittion. Furthermore, another citation was/is misplaced and I had fixed it. And I did check the sources before editing.

I don't see why you think my edits were pov. Whether I believe or not in Resurrection etc, I wouldn't express it on a Wikipedia article; on the other hand I believe that the article as it is now is pov. While fixing it, I was careful to not shift the balance the other way, so I think that reverting my edits doesn't fix anything.

Please let's agree on how to improve the present pov of the article without shifting the weight. Γαλαδριήλ (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC

@Γαλαδριήλ, I'm transferring this to the article talk page because it's about improving the article. I see that you aresincere and so I apologise for calling you a pov warrior in my edit summary.

TwoHorned

Please take a look here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TwoHorned about an issue that you were involved with at the Gog and Magog article. --Dekacarandaebonelm (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sock farm

I see you reverted on of these recently. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delotrooladoo. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

On David. He/they seem to have a wide field of interests.PiCo (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Gospel

Can you explain in the lead that the gospels were composed after the letters of Paul?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Daniel prophecies: different interpretations

There are different interpretations of all Bible prophecy, basically 4 groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology

• Preterism
• Historicism
• Futurism
• Idealism

So I pointed to that fact that the given interpretation laid in the Book of Daniel article about its prophecy is from the preterist camp: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Daniel&oldid=prev&diff=800972900

Yes? Rather than simply state that that interpretation/understanding simply "is" correct? But to state such is non-NPOV. I myself, naturally, hold a particular interpretation to be the correct one, but of course that is irrelevant here. Do you believe in the preterist one? Shall we not point it out as what it is, that it is but one among several? Let me know what you think. Sinsearach (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sinsearach, if you want to query an edit or a reversion of an edit, the proper place to do it is on the article talk page, not a user page. PiCo (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

New section at Yahweh

Would you consider writing a section at Yahweh about how he transitioned from an ethnic god to the universal God of Judaism? And perhaps something about how the name ceased to be pronounced? Editor2020 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be a good addition, but not soon - I have a contract to be fulfilled by end December and am running way behind time and getting scared. What I need in my life right now is a lovely bungalow on a beach on some Thai island with a bottle of gin and someone to do the cooking (papaya for breakfast, ethnic dancing in the evening). But yes, a Good Suggestion :) PiCo (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Your recent editing history 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 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Flat Earth

PiCo: are you past 3RR?

1. 01:22, 19 October 2017
2. 01:29, 19 October 2017
3. 01:35, 19 October 2017
4. 10:51, 19 October 2017

Please consider a self-revert. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply to one of your comments

Since this reply of mine to one of your comments on the talk page of the Flat Earth article is buried amongst other clutter in the middle of the page, and could easily be overlooked, I thought I'd let you know it was there.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Divine Name in the New Testament

• Divine Name in the New Testament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello again PiCo. I recently noticed this seemingly unmaintained article recently come back alive. I have the impression that non-reliable (self-published) sources are being used and I'm not up to date enough about the subject to know if they are used to push a particular POV or if they agree with most modern scholars. If you could take a look, when you can, I'd be grateful. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Paleo. This looks like far more time than I want to commit to. You could ask AnonMoos - he was involved in some talk-page discussion years ago and is very knowledgeable. PiCo (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you (I assume that the mention above also pinged AnonMoos, who is likely to show up if interested). —PaleoNeonate – 04:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

What would be the name of the authors and the name of the text books that contains Tommy Wasserman's proof.?

For a brilliant discussion of this textual problem, see Tommy Wasserman, “The ‘Son of God’ was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1),” Journal of Theological Studies 62 (2011) 20–50. Wasserman rightly concludes that the long version was original. It was kind of Craig Evans to reply so generously, but I have to say that everything he says is available in standard textbooks, including those cited in the article bibliography.PiCo (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please reply here soon. Miistermagico (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Miistermagico The title of the article would be as Craig Evans gives it: “The ‘Son of God’ was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1)", in the Journal of Theological Studies, issue no.62 of 2011, pages 20–50 (which means it's long!) If you go here you should be able to read the abstract, and access the article if you have an account. PiCo (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear PIco: Tommy Wasserman The "Son of God" was in the Beginning Lecture, 44 min, Q and A 28 min http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.fr/2011/10/mark-11-longish-reading.html Available here. Miistermagico (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Hello again PiCo, nice to see your improvements. For the notes, they use ad-hoc refbegin/refend and ref labels (and work fine), but could probably use efn with notelist instead (I had an edit conflict converting them, I could try again later). —PaleoNeonate – 10:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh and efn is equivalent to ref group=notes (and notelist equivalent to reflist with group=notes). —PaleoNeonate – 10:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I converted them to notelist/efn, hopefully that's better. Happy editing, —PaleoNeonate – 10:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Paleo. I know very little about these things. I feel the article needs to draw out the progression in how the resurrection is depicted - spiritual/visionary in the Creed and Paul (who skips straight from Crucifixion to glory in Heaven without any earthly appearances) and more physical in the gospels, leaving Mark aside. See Outi Lehtipuu, Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity.

Bible and violence

@PiCo: Hi PiCo! I am here to request your review of the Bible and violence 'theology' section--or the whole article if you feel up to that! I was impressed with the quality of your comments in the discussion we had there on Hell, so I feel you could contribute something of value there. It's been a long slog up-hill mostly but we are finally nearing the end of getting this article improved. But some of it has been written solely by me and it needs a second opinion I think. If you could look it over, make any suggestions you think of, I would be ever so grateful. Please say yes! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The Context Group

Good day, I'm User:SowingMoon I forgot my password and haven't made any edit yet. Is The Context Group mainstream?SowingMoon2 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:SowingMoon they look fine to me.PiCo (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PiCo. 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)

Daniel 2

Please explain your cryptic edit summary note 'rv to match source' against your reversion of my edit - thanks Clivemacd (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Clivemacd - I'll explain on the article talk page. PiCo (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello PiCo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ashur

Hi PiCo. Would you mind taking a look at the Ashur article? It's a pretty minor article by any standard, but over the course of the last year it was subject to a slow back-and-forth over a centuries-old translation dispute (which I will confess to participating in). At present the article acknowledges that there is some ambiguity and then racks up evidence favoring one side, which doesn't really sit right with me, but the article probably needs the eyes of someone with extensive knowledge of the field more than it needs mine. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, worth a shot, I guess. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

165.234.252.11Always worth a shot :). I did look at it, but it but it seemed to me that there just wasn't anything to say about Ashur. He appears in Genesis 10 as a name, attached to a father and some brothers, and that's it. Obviously he stands for Assyria, but there doesn't seem to be much more to it. If it were left to me I'd probably cut it right back. Just from curiosity, what interest brings you to this very arcane neck of the woods? PiCo (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh man, I think if I retrace my steps it's something like... Reincarnation -> gilgul -> Holy Spirit in Judaism -> article edit history -> someone's contribs -> Ashur? And I knew you were someone with some expertise in the area after wandering into the Yahweh article when you were cleaning it up a little more than a year ago. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Blackman

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.

A tag has been placed on Charles Blackman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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 deleted 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. --Loginnigol 09:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring (sorry)

I'm really sorry I had to report you, as I think you're a very valuable contributor and I much appreciate what you do. Unfortunately, when you and Lucullus19 revert each other close to 50 times, it's not possible to report just one user. I know you're a good and serious user who are here for the right reasons, so if I may give you one piece of advice: do not revert Lucullus19 again for at least six months, not on any article. There are others who can step in. What you should have done long ago, when discussions failed, is to report Lucullus19, instead of continuing to edit war. Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]. PiCo (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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. Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Good article

Greetings. I have been looking through the article Ecclesiastes and think it may be a candidate for GA status. Since you are a significant contributor, what is your opinion on this? Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good thought. You might like to do some tidying-up first. PiCo (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Levantine/Anatolian linguistics

Rather than add forum-type chat to Talk:Yahweh, I will continue here... I am more of an interested quasi-polyglot than a linguist, and don't know enough Greek to confirm or deny that fonduk is related, but fındık is Turkish for "hazelnut." The Turks have borrowed a lot of French words, including otel for hotel (along with école (okul) lycée (lise) and ascenseur (asansör)). I'm pretty sure they use han in the sense of a wayside inn, too. That seems to come from Persian, and behold! there is pandocheion as a Greek root for the Arabic word. Learn something every day, I do.

Never visited North Africa, other than brief ports of call as an army brat on the way to a new station. That extended corner of the world is fascinating, with all the layers of history still in and on the ground, memorialized in the speech patterns of the folks living there. They even have a word for "a pile of rubble where cities have risen, fallen, and risen again."

I only know enough Arabic to get in trouble with a few bad words, except for what I believe is the original way of saying "open, sesame!" Loosely transliterated, it goes something like "aftah tahin!" which IMO has a much more commanding magical prosody than the English. Be well, Just plain Bill (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Yahweh

It surprised me to hear you say this PiCo: "There's a strong tendency among conservative Christians and Jews to remove God from the Bible by denying the theology it expresses, and I want to put Him back in.". I had been assuming you were an atheist! How long have you been wanting to "put Him back in" for? Woscafrench (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk page: Mark's authorship

Pico, you have just amended the Gospel of Mark article and I have a related question for you on the Talk page there.

Gospel harmony - source to assess

Since you also noticed recent Gospel related COI, I would be grateful if you could comment at Talk:Gospel harmony#Source to assess. Some material is still cited to their material there. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Undone edit on "Gospels"

Hello,

I saw that you reverted my edit for Gospels, and returned it to "eliminating." According to proper English grammar, it should be "eliminated," because the two other activities in the list are in the past tense. Is there a reason why this policy wouldn't apply in this instance?

Thank you Packer1028 (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Packer1028, you're quite right, I'll change it back. PiCo (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yahweh

What I wrote about the pronunciation is an answer to several claims in the discussion in that section that we do not know at all how the name is pronunced, therefore in my view it belongs to where I put it. Dan Holsinger (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about the discussion page too. Dan Holsinger (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Alexander the Great in the Quran‎

I think that your merge suggestion is sensible. It's unfortunate that there was no input, I could perhaps restore those tags and add my comment but that'd still be little input. Maybe that a notice at some noticeboard(s) would help... —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: hmm interestingly both articles are not part of any WikiProject which also means that alert bots could not have updated the alerts (example of an alert page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts). —PaleoNeonate – 04:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Also interesting:

• Wikipedia:Merging#Caveats - "If you are unable to merge the pages, or you believe that the merger may be controversial, you might want to add a listing to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers."
• Wikipedia:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus - "the merger proposal is older than 30 days and nobody has objected, and you personally believe that the merger is appropriate"

I also tagged the pages for some WikiProjects. Likely that the discussion can still be left until it reaches 30 days. —PaleoNeonate – 04:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Garden of Eden

Hi PiCo.

Some time ago you worked on the Garden of Eden page and introduced a paragraph on "Other biblical mentions" where you cited "Luttikhuizen 1999". Some time later this was converted to {{|harvnb|Luttikhuizen|1999|p=37}} and eventually moved up to the lead. Unfortunately there does not appear to be corresponding citation. Do you have any bibliographic details of Luttikhuizen? Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Martin of Sheffield: I think that PiCo is on a Wikipedia break. It's possible that the source is "Paradise Interpreted" ([8]). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 11:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Paleo, the problem is that Luttikhuizen published at least two books in 1999, "Paradise Interpreted" and "Interpretations of the Flood" ([9]) so I don't want to guess for an author I've never heard of on a subject I know little about. I was just trying to be a bit gnomish myself and tidy references/citations. Thanks anyhow, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Likely that reading p. 37 of both would determine, then... You're most welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield:, I've done the checking and its definitely the Paradise Interpreted one. But the delightfully named Luttikhuizen is just the editor of the whole book, while the content on page 37 was written by the equally delightfully named Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The name of the chapter by Tigchelaar is "Eden and Paradise: The Garden Motif in some Early Jewish Texts (1 Enoch and Other Texts Found at Qumran".

I hope for PiCo's speedy return, although I think it's perfectly reasonable to step off Wikipedia now and then. Alephb (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've formatted the citation as Tigchelaar (1999) and updated the reference to link to it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Dhul Qarnayn

Thank you for your comment. You recently removed a revision to a sentence that was approved by several contributing members of the page. If there is complete scholarly consensus that this crept into the Quran via Alexander Romance please cite a reliable source saying this is undisputed, but it is highly unlikely that 100% of scholars unanimously agree on this and more likely that it is a theory held by some scholars. In the spirit of sharing knowledge, I feel it would be more accurate, to include that qualifier because it may be misleading to someone new to the subject. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbhard (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nbhard, I've left a reply on the Talk page of the article.PiCo (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents

A "majority opinion" presupposes a "minority" one as well. Three paragraphs under Historicity say it never happened. One sentence saying "maybe" is hardly "undue weight". And yes, it counts if it comes from a reliable source, whether you agree with it or not. No one knows whether it happened or not. Mannanan51 (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Mannanan51: this discussion belongs on the article talk page.PiCo (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PiCo. 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)

January 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genesis flood narrative; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender - I don't think I made ANY reverts in that article - can you tell me what they are?PiCo (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Trivia

I know a while ago we had a brief exchange over at ANI about Arabim (spelled like the modern word "Arabs") in the Hebrew Bible. Anyhow, I realized I'd left out a random bit of trivia. So .. God sends Elijah off to the wilderness, and says he'll arrange for ʕrbym to feed Elijah. He does so, and the ʕrbym, just as God says, bring Elijah meals of bread and flesh twice a day. God sends Elijah to another location, and says he'll command a widowed woman to feed him, she does so, etc.

Anyhow, ʕrbym by tradition is pronounced orevim, and thus it is "ravens" that bring Elijah the fish and meat. But orevim is not the most common reading for the consonants ʕrbym in the Bible, and so if we vocalized ʕrbym in the most common way, we'd read that Arabim brought Elijah food and water, which would arguably make this the Hebrew Bible's only passage where the wilderness-dwelling Arabim are described in a positive light. Alephb (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

My ravenous word :). Thanks for that, but I have to say I don't think it was me you were talking to on ANI. PiCo (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is some other Pico? Alephb (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah so - I'd forgotten :) PiCo (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The wiki article Arab has a typically unhelpful discussion, but it makes clear the root is with ayin. Bruce Chatwin famously said "arab" meant to move, but he had the wrong word - the root for that is ain-b-r. Ravens are mentioned! And what about that raven of Noah's - is there a connection, was it actually a very early chap in a headress wanting to sell Noah feelthy postcards? PiCo (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Noah's raven is only connected to Elijah's raven in midrash. The first mention of Noah's raven says, "And he sent forth a raven" in KJV (Genesis 8:7), but in the Masoretic Text we read et ha-orev, which, if you want to be super-literal, is "the raven". But there are presumably two or seven or fourteen ravens on the ark -- so why should this raven be so special as to receive a the, as if it is a raven the reader already knows? Well, we are told only one thing about this raven -- it "flew back and forth until the water had dried up from ha-aretz." Ha-aretz, in the plain meaning of Genesis, would refer to the "earth" here, so that the raven's flying back and forth ends naturally when the floodwaters dry.

But this is unsatisfying, so let's ignore the obvious option. Instead, let's take ha-aretz in the sense it has in the title of that famous Israeli newspaper: "the land [of Israel]". Is there a story where a raven appears when the waters have dried up from the land of Israel?

"And Elijah the Tishbite, of the inhabitants of Gilead, said to Ahab, As the Lord God of Israel lives, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew or rain these years unless I say so. ... And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and he drank from the brook" (1 Kings 17). That is, every day the ravens are flying "back and forth" twice a day to deliver food to Elijah. This "flying back and forth" continues until, of course, "the brook dried up" and so Elijah had to leave. So the daily "flying back and forth" in the Elijah story stops when "the water had dried up from the land of Israel", just as Genesis said.

The only logical reading, then, is that the raven of Genesis never stopped flying for over a millennium, until it finished its errand of giving food to Elijah. Obviously. Alephb (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Very strange. There does seem to be a connection, but Yahweh knows what it is. I was rather hoping you were about to tell me that Noah sent forth an Arab. PiCo (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, although goodness only knows if something along those lines might be found somewhere in the rabbinical literature. There's a passage in Genesis Rabbah, discussing the orev of Genesis, which then goes down a rabbit trail to briefly mentioning that maybe sometimes an orev is in fact a person. But it's only the briefest, most indirect raising of the issue, and Genesis Rabbah does not pursue the matter all the way to your hypothesis. Alephb (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The number of ravens on the Ark were of course 14. Here's a source on that [10] (The Sandman: The Kindly Ones) that shouldn't be questioned by anybody. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Goliath \ Composition of the Book of Samuel and the Goliath narrative

Please rethink your logic about not providing "BCE" to the year range in which the books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings were probably written and revised at the court of Judah's King Josiah, a seventh-century BCE king of Judah. Further, if it's not BCE, how could the first edition be written in the 7th century and the revised second edition be written in the 6th century? BillyPreset (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

BillyPreset - I have no objection to inserting BCE, my thing was changing "each" to "both" - the original is correct grammar. Feel free to ask for input on the Talk page.PiCo (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Dhul-Qarnayn into Cyrus the Great in the Quran. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

People are supposed to get all the information and decide for themselves

The exodus page is horrible If you compare the page in Hebrew-where people brought ALL the views of ALL historians-you might think the English page was written by the KGB. People are supposed to have all information and make up their own mind! There is a separate page in Hebrew that is "Biblical criticism about the Exodus story" that brings dozens of different findings and theories. I want to translate it and edit it into the English page. Laylaor (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Laylaor: WP:NOTFREESPEECH—we're a serious WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, WP:NOTFORUM. If we render WP:RS/AC as seen from WP:CHOPSY we have done our job well. We certainly don't to WP:FALSEBALANCE with WP:FRINGE views. These being said, a shortcut into the paradigm shift is https://web.archive.org/web/20011110114548/http://lib1.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm . It's about 20 years old, which means it was standard fare for several Bachelor/Master cycli. What you advance is academically severely outdated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Harvard has no official alignment, nor is there any predominant leaning that would create substantial peer pressure one way or another, as long as it is based on well thought-out and logically defensible positions. The Harvard community is hard, however, on those holding superstitious, arbitrary, and illogical positions, so if you believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs around the garden of Eden, you wouldn't be too happy there.

— Your sisters cute friend, answerbag.com

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What is this all about?PiCo (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Laylaor's first edits were at your talk page, complaining about the Exodus as being written by the KGB. So maybe he/she knows that you were one of the major editors of the article. The article has been protected from anonymous users so he/she attacks its editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Dhul Qarnayn

Hi. You have repeatedly reverted one of my edits to the intro of the article without any explanation. The problem with the intro is that it's almost entirely taken from one scholar's point of view, but presented as fact and as the result of scholarly consensus. I'm just trying to make sure that is clarified, and I've added a sentence to unpack how theistic and non-theistic views of the Qur'an's origins can clash. One can't just provide one point of view and expect the footnotes to clarify that. The sentence structure itself should be clear. I didn't want to start edit-warring, but this has to be resolved here instead of reverted without any explanation.

UncleKasra (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)UncleKasra

On Dhul Qarnayn

You reverted my edit stating "you misunderstood your sources" allthough I quoted my sources, not only as citations, but used their arguments and wrote it right into the wiki-article itself not once tempering their resumeé. I quoted Stephen Gerö and Brannon Wheeler both of which well known scholars with high reputation. I gave secondary sources, with explanations, I showed Wheelers, in 2002, proposed theory regarding the development of the Alexander Legend, all of this according to Wikipedia guidelines. Why was it reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikka85 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC) --Mikka85 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Resurrection of Jesus

Hi PiCo. Shouldn't Post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus and Vision theory of Jesus' appearances be merged into Resurrection of Jesus? They're basically all three about the same topic, with a very substantial overlap. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

PiCo strikes again: Deletion of Khidr subsection from Dhul Qarnayn main article

My man, you were again on a deletion-spree, weren't you? But this time I'm glad you did. Only a few hours before you deleted the hole Khidr section from the Dhul Qarnayn main article I wanted to request exactly that: the Khidr section was so out of place and some sources so outdated that it needed extensive rework, ironically while looking out for sources, I found out there already was a Khidr main article. Anyways, thanks for the deletion of Khidr's section from the Dhul Qarnayn main article. Two Wikipediañeros one thought. This leads me back to Dhul Qarnayn: It would be much appreciated if I could, before attempting to edit the article next time, post some sources and/or my thoughts, either here or on the TP, to discuss (but also) get your approval for the article. For instance sometimes I notice my wording of certain sentences appear somewhat out of place etc, but only If you have time of course. Like I said, your help/opinion would be appreciated. Mikka85 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Archive

Hi Pico. How about organising your archive? I'd love to add MiszaBot etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Go for it :)PiCo (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You base this stationary camp for about 40 years conclusion on what evidence or reason? To catch their breath?

Dear Pico, "Not quite - Yahweh joined them at Sinai (in the ark and tabernacle), and for most of the 40 years they were stationary". Miistermagico (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason I really can't help you with, but the evidence is the bible - Kadesh (biblical) is a good start.PiCo (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!^Ol^Ja 19:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The topic of Marcion's gospel in the article on the Gospel of Luke

Hello, I noticed that you reversed my recent edit on the Gospel of Luke, where I added some information about the disputed relationship between Luke and Marcion's gospel. I have to say that I don't think my additions should have been removed in their entirety.

Your reasoning was that it used an outdated source, and that it was "overweight on Marcion." When you say "outdated source," I presume you are referring to John Knox's 1942 book on the subject. I can understand that, although I also cited the much more recent works from Joseph Tyson (2006) and Matthias Klinghardt (2008). Really the citation to Knox was mostly redundant, since the fact that Marcionites claimed that their gospel was earlier than canonical Luke can be found in Tyson's work as well (or simply read in primary sources, such as Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem). Could we agree to restore the additions, but take out the citation to Knox? I really think this is an important issue related to the Gospel of Luke, since it bears on the dating of the final edition of Luke, and perhaps even on the motivations of the final redactor himself (if indeed he was writing later than, and in response to, Marcion). Montgolfière (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings

	Nice to meet you ~
	~ thanks for your work ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed that you were inactive since June. I hope that everything is well, and would like to thank you for all the work you have done on Wikipedia. I also hope that you return whenever you have the time and intention. Farewell if not, —PaleoNeonate – 07:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)