User talk:Hkp-avniel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! 199.125.109.104 (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1 Image:Genealogy of the kings of ancient Israel and Judah.png
2 Y-chromosomal Aaron
3 Signing your comments
4 Regarding your third party request about Sons of Noah
5 3RR warning on Javan
6 Editor Assistance Requests==
7 Genetics in the ancient world
8 Outside view by User:PeterSymonds
9 Genetics of the Ancient World
10 Improper uses of Message Boxes-what to do about it?

[edit] Image:Genealogy of the kings of ancient Israel and Judah.png

Hi. You've made an edit to the page for Image:Genealogy of the kings of ancient Israel and Judah.png, an image I created (it was based off another diagram, though). However, I'm somewhat confused by your wording, and to tell the truth I'm sure you know more about this subject than I do. How do you think I should change the image to properly reflect the lineage? Should I just move Jehu so that he is not indicated as the son of Jehoshaphat?

Thanks so much. Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First time I posted to wikipedia. the diagram is great...but the Kings of Israel belonged to 9 different "Houses" according to my count. I think it's best to show the Davidic lineage as one continuous lineage (in green as on your chart) but to show the lineages of the Kings of Israel as broken into several houses. What's your email and I'll send you the PDFs I made...and you can double check the data and edit the chart.

It might not be clear enough, but the diagram does indicate the different houses—when the arrows point horizontally (e.g. from Nadab to Baasha) it indicate the transfer of power to an unrelated person (different house). It'd be great if you could send me some stuff you have, though, and I'll see if I can update the image. You can email me here. Thanks! Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Y-chromosomal Aaron

You have been making a lot of edits recently to the "reactions" section of the Y-chromosomal Aaron article.

As previously constituted, this section was intended as a quick review of what reactions the early papers had led to -- ie verifiable external published responses, not a section for general discussion of consequences and issues with the theory (although this might have a place further down the article), and definitely not a section for airing personal unpublished opinions.

As User:DGG writes on the talk page, this should be "an article on Y chromosomal Aaron, not the origin of the Jewish people, or even the origin of the Coheninc tradition."

The classic way for dealing with such differences on Wikipedia is Bold - Revert - Discuss. You've Boldly added a lot of material to the article, and that's good. But because, like DGG, I have concerns with it, I now propose to cut it (at least for the time being) to the Talk page (the "Revert" stage). There, can we discuss it, can you set out why you think the material is relevant and ought to be included in the article, and can we bring in some other editors to also discuss it, before forming a WP:CONSENSUS about what of material ought to be in the article, and where.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signing your comments

Please use four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments to sign them. It automatically timestamps them, too. -- Jheald (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your third party request about Sons of Noah

H-a, I've taken a look at the edits in question and - more importantly - the discussion page of Sons of Noah. As I mentioned in my reply on my talk page, this is well beyond my field of expertise, but I do have a couple of suggestions that I hope are taken in the spirit that they are given. First, in terms of Wikipedia policy only, Til is on much firmer ground than you are (there is a difference between a fork-level project and a POV fork, and your edits tend to lean more to the latter. Similarly, if you're going to add material, you should try to match the writing style of the article you are augmenting (instead of overwhelming it with minutiae). Second, you truly should discuss what you're trying to do with the WikiProject. If all else fails, make a sandbox subpage of your user space (like User:Hkp-avniel/sandbox1) and put together your proposed article there... and then see what the WikiProject members could use of it by doing what you did with me earler: by leaving a message on their Talk Pages. You're more likely to get more positive results going this way rather than "butting heads". Til has mentioned a few positive suggestions worth following up on, if you so desire. I hope this helps - Good luck to all involved. B.Wind (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning on Javan

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Javan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

To prevent Wikipedia WWIII can someone step forward as a third-party arbitrator/mediator to enter into a three-way dialogue with myself User:Hkp-avniel and User:Til Eulenspiegel. I want to resolve this conflict as soon as possible so I can get on with editing and hopefully, helping others on wikipedia resolve their disputes as well.

thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to act as an informal mediator. I'm going to look at the page histories. In the meantime, it might help if you both explain what resolution you'd like to see. PeterSymonds | talk 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Assistance Requests==

^{From WP:EAR}

Discussion pages on Wikipedia are there so that editors can talk out difficulties without warring. On the Javan article it is the other editor's belief that the whole section should be moved to another article. I suggest you start talking to one another before you tag each other to death. Biblical Scholarship is a contentious subject at the best of times but discussing ideas is the only way you will be able to move forward with the article. BpEps - t@lk 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

mmmm What I'd do for now is prepare something in your own user space (personal sandbox) putting together your ideas from the tagged section and try to find some other counter arguments with sources. I do see the other editors point that the section my fall out of the scope of the article. It seems to infer (or is that my inference?) that Biblical Scholarship is as sound as modern Anthropology. When you think its sound enough for public consumption let a couple of editors from the most relevant wiki-project take a look and get a candid opinion from them. There is an article I'd like you to have a look at though - Methuselah, I think it needs paring down, or at least bulleted to explain differences of opinion. Kind regards -- BpEps - t@lk 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

advice much appreciated...and will continue to do so...but my perception is that there is an inter-personal conflict that began on Sons of Noah and has carried over to Javan. if you can help us find an experienced third-party mediator to help engage myself and User:Til Eulenspiegel (assuming he will come to the table for "peace talks") in a three-way dialogue I would appreciate that. It is less about content at this point from my point of view. regards Hkp-avniel (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, it's 100% about content. I do not come onto wikipedia for "inter-personal conflict". I always watch all of the Sons of Noah, and will not let any of them get filled up with irrelevant WP:SYNT from anyone. It shouldn't be personal with you, either -- any other editor who's been here for years will tell you the same thing, we just don't like any "syntheses" here, unless perhaps they've already been published by an author somewhere. So if my advice to you was study the core policies like WP:RS and WP:OR etc., another editor's advice would probably be similar. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics in the ancient world

I moved this move request from "incomplete" to "uncontroversial". Normally one never initially lists a request in the incomplete section. Requests that migrate there because of opposition get deleted in 5 days, and rarely get rescued. If it does get objected to and pops back into the incomplete section you will have to go through the complete formal move request, creating a place for discussion, adding a move tag, and adding the request to the "other" section of WP:RM. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:PeterSymonds

Right, I've had a chance to look at the page history. First, I'm satisfied that there are no personal feelings from Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) that are being transferred from Sons of Noah to Javan. All edits are content-based, and he leaves appropriate edit summaries explaining what s/he has done. As well as major edits, you both participate in minor grammatical fixes as well.

To Hkp-avniel: Til is in his right to dispute what you've written. Here and here, you introduce a lot of unsourced speculation. You use weasel words in sentences like: "Young earth creationists and many among Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims, retain the belief that the Table of Nations applies to the entire people of Earth, holding to the traditional reading of the events recorded in the Bible as historical". Also: "The implication is that the Table of Nations can be interpreted in its historical context as an Iron Age ethnology (circa 1200 BCE – 586 BCE) to explain the ethnic make-up of the people groups living in ancient Israel and the surrounding regions, their allies and enemies, that were known to the ancient Israelites who authored the text or alternatively, as an ethnology of all people groups on the Earth." I don't doubt its factual accuracy, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

Sources: Wikipedia, and any other organization that allows others to edit (eg. blogs etc) are not reliable sources. I think the section on Ethnogenetic studies does stray from the topic and should be cut down. The synthesis tag should stay for as long as the Wikipedia article remains as a source. Unfortunately I can only access half of the links for some reason, so I won't be able to say if these back up the claims or not.

Furthermore, editors shouldn't remove tags from articles until they have been properly discussed and the concerns acted upon. It's more to do with etiquette; the person who placed the tag has serious concerns about the article, and it's up to other editors to address those concerns (if they can't be addressed by the person placing the tag). Both of you came close to breaking the three-revert rule; you both had your reasons, but it shouldn't have come to that. If either of you had concerns, you should have contacted an outside editor or opened a request for comment on the subject.

Concluding, I see you're both interested in editing those two articles, so I suggest you work together. Discuss changes on the talk page and allow each other to lend constructive criticism. That way, you're less likely to encounter conflict which could escalate into temporary blocking. PeterSymonds | talk 18:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PeterSymonds wrote: you introduce a lot of unsourced speculation. You use weasel words in sentences like: "Young earth creationists and many among Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims, retain the belief that the Table of Nations applies to the entire people of Earth, holding to the traditional reading of the events recorded in the Bible as historical".

This is actually something I didn't write. It was on the Sons of Noah page before I edited anything. I merely added to it. You can see the version before I began editing the page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sons_of_Noah&oldid=199876130#Historicity_and_coverage

You'll see the weasel words you refer to are not ones that I added or used.

To sum up my main issue with Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) is with the issue of how to deal with content that he disagrees with. I do have a personal issue with his/her/their etiquette on this issue.

You will surely understand that after investing hours of work to research content and make a map to give a pictorial representation of Shem and Ham he just decided to delete it. You can see my first edit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sons_of_Noah&oldid=200135434

So my question is, what is the mechanism to resolve a situation when one editor keeps deleting your edits for no cited reason...except that he/she/they seem to disagree with the content? Explain the protocol and I will follow it, but I don't believe that Til's delete of what he disagrees with and then a declaration of war on another editor is the proper protocol. As far as the subject matter, the Hebrew Bible is complex, we have to learn to live with the complexity and respect both religious and non-religious views on the subject.

I came back to comment, but it appears that Til has gone through the article and removed the tags. I understand that it's frustrating to have your edits deleted, but per WP:OWN, anyone can make whatever changes they like. However, I agree that the issues should have been raised on the talk page before the edit war, so I'll leave a note for Til about that. If you need any further assistance, don't hesitate to contact me. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he made his position pretty clear on the talk page actually, something I didn't notice on there before (Talk:Javan#April 2008). Anyway, remember in future not to involve yourself in edit wars, as they usually result in the page being fully protected. Continue discussions on the talk page, and always try and arrange some agreement. If that doesn't work, you can open a request for comment on the subject. Don't take it upon yourself to break WP:3RR, because you'll be blocked for doing so. Hope I've helped. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics of the Ancient World

The template is a little misleading. The page has plenty of internal links, but it doesn't comply with the manual of style. Hut 8.5 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The template refers to the wikification process, which can include adding internal links but also includes processes such as arranging sections and formatting the lead - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify for a more complete description. The actual wording displayed by the template needs to be concise and therefore doesn't go into much detail.

Specifically, the current layout of the article would be more appropriate for a scientific paper or report, but Wikipedia does not publish these things - it is an encyclopedia, not a journal. I suggest you get rid of the "Article Title" and "Summary" layout and replace it with flowing paragraphs of text. Getting rid of almost all of the bold in the article is another good idea, and the lead needs to be reformatted (see WP:LEAD).

Also, please don't immediately accuse me of disruptive editing. Remember to assume good faith and understand that other editors are also trying to improve the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is on ancient genetics, and should be about ancient genetics. If people want to read about Phoenicia they can follow the link to the Phoenicia article (feel free to edit that page instead). Hut 8.5 17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry no offense intended. This article is about "The Genetics of the Ancient World" that means specific places in the ancient world like Phoenicia...I re-wrote the part about Phoenicia and will include it here as it was with the link to Phoenicia...it is merely a matter of convenience...it is actually a summary of the original article anyway from National Geographi. I'm changing the section previously listed as "Genetics Studies of Ancient Populations" to "Annotated Bibliography"

I've responded to you on the article's talk page. Perhaps you could try reading some featured articles to get an idea of what very good Wikipedia articles look like. Hut 8.5 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now, and I'm going to remove the cleanup tag. The lead could still do with a bit of work (it's meant to summarise the article rather than give an overview of genetic history). To answer your other question: you can write an individual page on a genetics article, providing it meets the notability requirements. Hut 8.5 09:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improper uses of Message Boxes-what to do about it?

{{helpme}} I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but I see that many users are using message boxes as ways to discredit pages that they don't agree with etc. Where can I find the outline of this practice which I'm guessing is part of Wikipedia:Gaming the system or Wikipedia:Disruptive editing but I couldn't find it. How do you deal with this within wikipedia protocol? thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you feel the box is being used improperly, you should probably take it up on the talk page of the article (ask why is the article tagged). --Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hkp, it would help if you would cite a specific page that you feel is being discredited. If you feel a message box (or clean-up template) is being misused, you can always remove it yourself. But I would invite you to improve the article according to the template's suggestion - which is most likely the editor's goal. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.