User talk:Arminden

See Dan Bahat, feel free to join in.. Zero^talk 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the category was "Archaeological museums run by Israel" or "Archaeological museums featuring Israeli history", you might have a point. But it isn't, so you don't. "In Israel" has a specific meaning that is only true here according to a minority political viewpoint. We'd like to stay away from political viewpoints altogether, but when that isn't possible we go with the mainstream. Zero^talk 06:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you are a good editor so I hope you continue. Zero^talk 06:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z. Still, I've been working for travel guide publishers for so many years and know to appreciate complete info. Check Buq'ata, Mas'ada etc. for a very practicable compromise for Golan issues. There are no categories "Archaeological museums run by Israel" or "Archaeological museums featuring Israeli history" and it makes no sense to create them. Btw, this museum has a large focus on prehistory, another one on Byzantine period synagogues plus a bit on Roman-period Gamla, and I think nothing more recent than that, so nothing on Israel as such. Israel is "de facto" where, once you're on the ground, everything around you is Israeli - laws, currency, access (visa, entry points), language, people (yes, Jews aside, all Golan Druze have Israeli permanent residency and ID cards and some even adopted IL citizenship, all speak at least some Hebrew, use the Israeli health system, job market etc., etc.), so what the international law says is utterly irrelevant on the ground. Not what the Druze feel and think, but that's a different topic altogether and is more differentiated than one might think. There are (a few) tourists who refuse to visit the Golan along with all occupied territories, and that's why indicating the int'l legal status is for sure of some significance, but for smb. who's planning his trip or researching the topic and using the categories, the 2/3 of the Golan now controlled by Israel are in Israel for all intents and purposes. Belfast is in the UK, contested or not, I hate the fact that Putin got Crimea, but I won't try to visit it via Kiev, similarly with Abkhasia and Georgia, or the territories Romania lost to the Soviets through the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and never got back from the Ukraine even if the treaty has been declared nil and void, etc, etc, etc. I see WP as a source of practical info, not a manual of political correctness. The UN actually very much acknowledges de facto realities, while fighting for correct resolution of conflicts. I wouldn't be surprised or object if a Syrian Golan refugee would make it his goal to "fix" this issue, but you don't strike me as being Ahmad az-Zero Saif ad-Din al-Golani. Ma'assalama habibi and have a great day, Arminden (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Hi, because I edit in the Israel-Palestine area of Wikipedia, I'm only allowed to use my administrator powers there in the most no-brain cases. Such as squashing vandals, which is not a description fitting this case. Blocking the recent IPs won't make a difference either, as whoever it is will just return with different IPs. The only way to slow down disruption is semi-protection, which again I am not allowed to impose myself. You should make a case for semi-protection at WP:RFP. Zero^talk 14:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try!Arminden (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Hi there. I've been monitoring (not stalking!) your edits to the Middle East on and off since your constructive edits on the Acre article. You're clearly knowledgable in Middle East geography and affairs and I was prepared to swoop in and back you up if you made any constructive edits to articles that upset the pushy nationalist-political types that dominate parts of that topic area.

I'll briefly explain why I have effectively reverted your changes on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article. It's important that the prose of the article flow well, and the statements in brackets disrupted that flow. There is also no need to use prose to negate any dubious statement or apologise for anything. If a statement is wrong or irrelevant, feel free to be WP:BOLD and just remove it, as I have done! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi back, ANA. I'm really happy that you found some gain in following my WP editing. It sometimes seems to me that editors are the only ones who read what other editors contribute :) and it's usually with scorn, while the common users couldn't care less - so every good encounter is encouraging. For your backing I really do feel grateful and I thank you very much for your kind words about my efforts, knowledgeable or otherwise as thy might be.

I see you did anything but undo my edit, you actually removed the older bit I felt urged to set right. Thanks! I fear though that smb. might put it back in. If that happens, I'll happily leave it up to you to find a better-flowing sentence as a means of countering the wrong impression left on the cursory reader by that non-statement. Cheeres, Arminden (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Hello @Arminden How are you today i loved your thing on god very entertaining because it says:

Hello i am @Arminden.

I couldn't stop laughing i think someone edited it when you said not too but it is a free world.

Goodbye. 83.100.161.198 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you change the spelling of a word from "Ava" to "Ave" on Wikipedia and in the comment section, instead of writing "correct spelling," you write "that's Ava Gardner you meant; this on the other hand, is Latin or something like that, pre-Jahiliya in any case and infidels stuff)" it demonstrates rude and bigoted behavior. Not that you didn't already know that..VanEman (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Wow, it worked better than I could have hoped for! You really did guess it's meant for you! I'm honoured. You did indeed go through all of my dozens of edits of yesterday till you found my "message in a bottle". You're a thorough man, Van. Put it to good use.Arminden (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

PS: Yes, I am hostile to people with more stubbornness than knowledge. No, bigoted I'm not, I'm very open to well-founded opinions different from mine. I hold knowledge to be important, comprehension even more so, and consider true intellectuals to have a heavier word to say than others. I don't count myself to be a scholar or an intellectual other than in attitude and striving. Political correctness is a substitute for civility and politeness which disregards the authority conferred by knowledge. Big words, simple truths. [Arminden]

I can't believe I never noticed it said Jerusalem instead Holy Land. Nicely done. I can't believe I missed that. MontChevalier (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.82.26 (talk) [reply]

---

Thank you for the flowers, i.e. merci mon chevalier! :) Don't get too wound up, neither did Guy notice the trap at Hattin, and that was more serious. Deus lo vult.Arminden (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

If you mean HaZor'im, it was established by olim from Germany and the Netherlands from the Union of Religious Pioneers (ברית חלוצים דתיים), Ezra and the Mizrahi Youth. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Why don't you write so? :) I'll put it in, but quoting your talk page might not be enough for everybody.
PS: Hazorim - HaZor'im: the Yekke movement alive & kicking? "Bei uns sagt man richtig..." Can afford joking about it, just got an unneeded 100-point test certificate for German from Berlitz; some need it black on white. About the apostrophes etc.: I use them when I must, otherwise I go with Lawrence (of Arabia) who made fun of transliteration pundits--it's all a convention, some like some of it, some none of it, some swear by it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Makedonija. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Macedonia (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

don't know who you are, don't know what you're talking about, and seemingly you don't either. ignored. ps: i'm pretty much out of this wp BS altogether, so don't bother anymore with threatening, blocking, cursing in polit. correct ways, etc. [Arminden]

http://www.jta.org/1976/03/11/archive/davidovich-suffers-heart-attack

so here's an article with a Jewish Russian with the same name as Boris's father you're telling me he's not Jewish too ?

Whats your obsession with going around covering up Jewish people's names ? You some sort of Zionist history revisionist ?

---

Go to vodka detox, them read again, then talk. [Arminden]

Hello Arminden,

A while ago you made an expansion to the article Barid (caliphate). In regards to this statement:

"The etymology of the Arabic word "barid" is considered by P. K. Hitti in his History of the Arabs to be "unclear". He takes issue with two of the proposed origins, writing that "Babylonian buridu is just as unsatisfactory as Latin veredus.""

This had no direct citation, and when I went to go and find the quote I was unable to do so within Hitti's work. Instead, Hitti's explanation of the etymology of the word barid reads as follows (p. 322, n. 5): "Ar barid is probably a Semitic word, not related to Latin veredus, Pers birdan, a swift horse, Ar birdhawn, horse of burden." I did however find the quote, not in Hitti's book, but in a review of the book written by Richard N. Frye (here, page 585), in which he makes the quoted statement as an addendum to Hitti's p. 322 footnote. Would it therefore be more appropriate to change the citation from Hitti to Frye? Thanks, Ro4444 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ro4444, hi. On the contrary, I must thank you. Please do go ahead and correct my mistake. I remember that I tried to figure out the etymology, was unsatisfied with the WP article as it was, and drowned in all kind of books and papers, one older than the other, which I found online. Please excuse me for leaving it up to you to fix the issue. Keep up the good work, Arminden (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

---

Great, glad to get that solved. I made the change and added a citation, so we should be good there. As for the etymology, most of the recent sources I used believed in either the Latin or the Persian origin; the Babylonian/Semitic theory doesn't seem to have been popular since the early 20th century (though my view may be colored by using predominantly English-language texts only). Even still, it was a good expansion for the article, for elaborating on the development of modern theories for the origin of the word. Thanks again for your help on this. Ro4444 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arminden. I noticed that you are very sure of yourself and the truth of your edits. Nevertheless, there are certain community established conventions and editing rules on Wikipedia, of which you might not always be aware. I would urge you to take any potentially controversial edit to the talkpage for discussion and consensus establishing prior to making such edits.

Relevant policies and guidelines: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TRUTH, WP:BRD and many others regarding specific issues. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi @Debresser:. Thanks for your message. Honestly, WP is more of a "bad habit" of mine, I have no intention of spending any more time on doing additional studies of WP lingo and insider procedures beyond what accords with the real world, major encyclopedias and lexicons (Britannica, Larousse, Duden, etc.), common sense, and WP's usefulness for the common user.

The habit of using transliterated Hebrew terms as part of articles written in English is specific to religious Jewish circles. Not outside them. Check in the real world, google for terms, whatever. I will not fight anyone who has the time and hobby to deny reality on WP, of which there are many and who enjoy slugging it out on "talk pages" full of endless monologues. This is my own monologue :-) and all I have to say. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Joseph Zaritsky at kandinof yard,.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 removed 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, so just letting you know, there are actually two similar publications run by BAS, one is Biblical Archaeology Review, which is their lovely print publication, and the other is their online Bible History Daily publication which I occasionally write for—although I was on the cover of BAR two years back. Easy mistake to make when citing, of course. I made the correction in the mikvah article footnote. Thank you though, it sure is nice to see my name cited on Wikipedia! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5776 21:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Sir William - or shall I say Sir Henry? -, I'm most honoured. I do get the daily newsletter,but didn't quite realise that it's fully independent of the print publication. Nice place to meet. Only in the field could be nicer. Keep up the good work! Happy holidays, Arminden (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, just Henry. I'm not a knight nor am I eligible for such fancy things. The name is just very popular as you can imagine—though some fellow did accuse me of masquerading as him! I think a lot of the same people write for the print publication as the online one, but the online also has guest writers such as moi. Like I said, easy mistake especially because a lot more people think of BAR than BAS. And thanks! My days in the field might be done, but if they aren't, hopefully meet you there one day as well! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5776 22:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense to include a list of all desert castles as a "see also" in each desert castle article:

• A "see also" to desert castle gets to the full list.
• The articles generally already include a link to desert castle, and the manual of style says "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi @Macrakis:. I am sure you are right, and I think with time most of these "See also" links will be deleted. But please, not yet though. The term "desert castles" has been wrongly limited to the Jordanian ones. My point is to inform people about the wider CONTEXT. The Middle East is a horribly tribal place, helping people see the wider picture, in whatever area, is a gain. Thank you and happy holidays! Arminden (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC) @Macrakis: PS: I think NONE of the pages relating to non-Jordanian desert castles did link to the term, and I'm not sure even the Jord. ones all did. Or used the term "qasr" as universally accepted terminology. The topic got far too little exposure, and it shows in the WP articles. Besides, it was me, today, who added the examples from Syria, Israel and Palestine to the list on the Desert castles page, so I went on to connect a bit farther, as part of the same "widening of the horizons". The term is extremely vague as it is, giving it at least geographically a clearer shape can only help.Arminden (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zero0000: Would you consider starting a page on spring-flow tunnels? I'm still not capable of that feat.
Zvi Y. D. Ron is/was THE specialist, he published apparently mainly between 1967-1992, but TAU still has him on its website [1]. There is even a mention of a Zvi Ron publishing on the topic in 2013 [2].
There is a lot on this at [3].
It's a technology DIFFERENT from the better known qanat (see below), it has apparently first been developed in the time of Herod the Great (didn't see enough proof to fully accept that), the Judean Mountains have the most examples. At Abu Ghosh and Battir Roman inscriptions were found at apparently pre-existing spring-flow tunnels, with the names of the 10th Legion Fretensis and 5th Macedonian Legion, the first from the time of the first revolt, the second connected with the Bar Kochba revolt. So the systems were there in the 60s CE/130s CE. I am not sure if I understood it correctly, that there is no proper aquiclude in the Judean Mountains, just some type of aquitard (marl or similar), which lets some of the water through, in any case, for catching more water, the idea was of digging tunnels until they reached - where? the wettest spot?-, building there a collection pool which gathered the entire flow from the exposed ceiling, and taking the water out via channels in the tunnel floor, to be then distributed to terraces. But this is what I gathered from less than academical sources. Ron has a publication which might contain his main results, Zvi Y. D. Ron, Agricultural terraces in the Judean Mountains, appeared in: Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966) 33-49, 111-122, but I didn't find it online. There is only one useful quote I could find:

By terracing the hills, plots of agricultural land became available that did not take away from the land needed to harvest grains in the valleys. Several archaeologists maintain that terracing was the major technological innovation of the Iron Age.290 [Footnote 290: See, for example, Zvi Ron, “Agricultural Terraces in the Judean Mountains,” IEJ 16 (1966): 33–49, 111–22. Joseph A. Callaway, “A Visit with Ahilud. A Revealing Look at Village Life When Israel First Settled the Promised Land,” BAR 9 (1983): 42–53. Lawrence E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35.]

Qanat vs. spring-flow tunnel: Although there are similarities in the construction techniques (both are excavated tunnels designed to extract water by gravity flow), there are crucial differences between the two. Firstly, the origin of the qanat was a well that was turned into an artificial spring. In contrast, the origin of the spring flow tunnel was the development of a ‘real’ spring to renew or increase flow, following an episode of the water table receding. Secondly shafts, which are essential to qanats, are not essential to spring flow tunnels.
That's about it. Interested? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Hi Zero. I hope I'm not pinging you too often? Please tell me if I am. Now I stumbled upon this typical potayto-potahto double, Yavne and Yibna. I worked on the history part so as to help somebody access the info quickly and efficiently: all Muslim periods under Yibna, the rest under Yavne, with "main" tags and repetitions on both pages if interest overlaps. I think it's in every WP reader's interest to keep things simple & logical, but by now I know what will follow. Problem is that I only noticed afterwards that there's been a merger attempt, closed by a very IT-minded arbiter with a negative decision. Negative is OK, but his logic I cannot fully follow. I will NOT go into stuff like this, but I see you have, so - isn't there some logical guideline saying, for instance, that a defunct village gets its own history, while the still existing town that took its place gets all the rest? Especially parts which it claims a connection to? Or any other rational principle. Ideally such which are, look & smell neutral. My main issue is: you got bits of info here, bits there, some overlapped, some were in the wrong place (more on Yibna aspects at Yavne & viceversa). Endless mess. Doesn't serve anyone. Except that people don't act according to ration, robots do, I know. Suggestions? Thanks & cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the overlap between the two articles looks pretty silly. There are still problems with the content, especially with the 1948-ish history. To summarise, Arab Yibna was on the site of ancient Yavne but was depopulated in 1948. As for modern Yavne, it was not founded on the same site and only in recent decades has it expanded enough that the ancient site is on its outskirts. Because of this I can understand the point of view that the ancient history belongs with Yibna and not with Yavne. Now, one important piece of history is missing: the founding of modern Yavne. It was not a case of resettling Yibna! I have a 1956 Israel map that shows Yibna as "abandoned" and יבנה (Yavne) as a new establishment about 1km north. Similarly, there is no "Yavne" in the complete list of recognised settlements which appeared in the 1952 Israeli Yearbook. I didn't find out what the full story is; do you have anything? Zero^talk 08:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Hi. You're giving me too much credit, I don't have much of anything in terms of non-archaeological data. But I know a bit about history and settlement, Zionist or otherwise. The tell has not been even excavated although it is located very conveniently because it has a lot of Ottoman village remains and Crusader walls at the top, and getting to what the Israeli archaeologists are most interested in, post-70 Yavne and maybe Israelite & Philistine Yavne, would mean destroying that first (see quoted book by Raz Kletter [4]). The mukhtar's house looked very much inhabited some 10 years ago, and the mausoleum of Abu Huraira is surrounded by city fabric. 1 km is nothing, sometimes the same population moves by even more after a major event. The name was preserved, and the location of a settlement is decided and defined by its convenient position on major trade roads, other site-specific sources of livelihood, source of water, important landmarks (mausoleum!), and in the past yes, defensive features (hill, tell) - so the latter one is the only unchecked box, but it is quite anachronistic. Nobody argued with topography against the merger. Plus self-definition is quite important, and they did call it Yavne. Kvutzat Yavne and Gan Yavne took those names rather than simply Yavne because they knew they're not *at* Yavne. Building next to, and not on top of former Arab villages, occurred in other places too. As a possible indicator to how "availavble" the tell and its surroundings was in 1948: the mosque/Crusader church was blown up only in 1950 (see Kletter), maybe together with other houses, maybe not - Kletter doesn't specify and Yeivin who protested with the IDF was always just interested in archaeology, not in modern residential buildings.
Another argument: if continuity comes up, which is ridiculous but likely to happen, the favissa was Philistine, Israelites and post-Exilic Jews didn't hold the coast for long periods. Byzantine Iamnia was much larger, they had a "large Samaritan population" (Negev & Gibson), so people came when times were good and left when they turned bad. There is no population continuity here any more than in any eastern Mediterranean town. An adversary of the merger made what I consider to be the best (if not fully accurate) point in the discussion: there was an Arab Yibna from C7 till 1948, and a Jewish Israeli town after that. Right. Except, who were the inhabitants in the first century or two after the Muslim conquest? I didn't find data on that, normally people stayed put for a while and either left later on, or converted, with or w/o new Arab settlers moving in right away - some Arabs came with Umar, some with Saladin, some with Baibars etc. Btw, Abu Huraira is buried in Medina, I would guess the mausoleum is probably Mamluk rather than 12th c. as the article claims, and the Mamluks had this policy of "inventing" holy tombs along the postal roads which were their only interest in Palestine (link betw. Cairo and Damascus), building makams there, and maybe attracting some settlers along with the pilgrims (see Sidna Ali, Nabi Musa). Also ironic: Abu Huraira was a Yemenite, so not much of a Palestinian/Philistine.
I see zero reason why Philistine, Israelite, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Yavne/Iamnia should be one topic, Yibna another, and Israeli Yavne a third, or some other combination leaving us with the HISTORY being split on two pages. There was no perfect continuity between any of those periods, and nobody normally asks for that. We can have 3 pages - History on one, with all periods, Yibna and Yavne each separate with their own period plus a "main" tag to the rest -, or 2 pages, giving primary focus to one of the two places who still do have "advocates" (unlike the long-gone ones), which is a matter of decision from above :-)
Going to eat, cheers Arminden (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)ArmidenArminden (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC) PS: Somebody made a farfetched comparison to Constantinople vs. Istanbul. By far closer to the topic: City of David and Jerusalem. Nobody would argue that the C.o.D. belongs on the Silwan page rather than the Jerusalem one, although the CoD lay outside the city confines for endless centuries (70 - ?4th c.?, 1033-19th/20th c.). Why? Because the city moved, but kept some of its identity BEYOND its physical existence. This very much also applies to Yavne. (It's also true that Silwan did not extend onto the CoD ridge until the 19th c. No comparison is perfect.)Arminden (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the latest discussion on Talk:Chalcolithic might benefit from your attention. Zero^talk 08:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:: Zero, hi. Thank you for inviting me to the discussion. I will need to take a 2-week break from WP and do some paid work, which is very good news. From what I have studied, the Middle Eastern Chalcolithic is considered by some heavy-weights as a period in its own right (i.e. Avraham Negev & Shimon Gibson, Gabriel Barkay). See the bronze hoard from the Cave of the Treasure in Wadi/Nahal Mishmar, possibly originating in the Chalcolithic temple from Ein Gedi. They did use copper, bronze was rare and primitive, alloyed with arsenic (possibly based on naturally occurring mixed ore, if I remember right), which meant: you didn't live to see your grandchildren grow as a Chalcolithic-era bronze metallurgist. There were areas where the transition from Neolithic to Ch. and from Ch. to Early Bronze happened gradually, but in general it was a sudden apparition, and then disappearance, of a very specific population and its culture. Sorry, but I need to go. Till next time, Arminden (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:: Hi Zero. Did some restructuring, nothing much in terms of content, but now I hope it starts making more sense once the reader understands the different approaches from region to region. ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon University is on the Mount of Olives !!!. 5.29.119.219 (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@5.29.119.219: Thanks, but that's a statement, not a geographical definition or an argument :-)

Does anyone KNOW if the boundary Olivet-Scopus is defined as "along the Tzurim Valley" or not? Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TZURIM VALLEY is the border between Mount Scopus and Mount of Olives. 5.29.119.219 (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@5.29.119.219: OK, I understand it's most likely true (and logical), and that you know this, but for WP it's useful to have a quotable source. There are two separating landmarks there, the Tzurim V. and the At-Tur road slightly S of it; unless one can quote some reliable source, it's hearsay. Frustrating, I agree. PS: having a WP identity helps with gaining credibility. Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the revert in Ghassulian, both the text and the map say it is in modern Jordan. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle:: I put the map there! But read the name of the page: GHASSULIAN (culture, phase), and NOT Teleilat Ghassul! Then go on and read the lead: it says it's a culture stretching over western parts of Jordan, and southern Israel & Pal. Please go beyond the "first impression" when editing, you need to really know the topic first. Btw, T. Ghassul was excavated by Franciscan archaeologists when there was no Jordan, just a Trans-Jordan and a Palestine under the same British mandate regime, and the findings were brought to Jerusalem, where they still are on display. So yes, things are seldom linear. ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different trees relevant here, the history tree (for the "ancient" culture) and the archaeology tree (for the "modern" archaeological site). The latter tree is subcategorized by modern country. In this case the categories should presumably become Category:Ancient Levant and Category:Archaeological sites in Jordan. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! As long as we keep them apart, I am happy for the added info. Thanks! ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit summary,[5] I am not German, even though I know the language. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Dovid, I'm aware of that. I had hoped you'd get the point. Never mind. I have done some good work on that lead, eliminated a big logical mistake and made it much clearer. You came and removed some supporting elements. Whatever. It is not an easy topic, with a cloud of misconceptions flying around it, and for anyone who didn't study Judaism it's hard to understand. I haven't studied Judaism, but did learn about the 3 main monotheistic religions, what's essential in their understanding, some comparison, and how to put it across in a simple manner to others. Using layout (separate symmetrical paragraphs for opposed terms), bold letters, etc. helps clarify things, period. Contracting too much and eliminating such helpful elements is counterproductive and, after the effort I've put into explaining the logic of using them I find it, honestly, silly. The irony is that for the public at large "Talmud" is a synonym for "splitting hairs". If there is a topic where one should insist on a clear, didactic explanation, then this is IT. But I don't have the energy or intention to fight editors who doggedly refuse to see the light. (Arrogant? OK, but not the point.) Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did good work there. There is some instruction in WP:MOS not to use bold unnecessarily, and this was such a case IMHO. I am fine with not seeing the light, and with you not having the energy or intention to fight about it. That makes life so much easier and more pleasant. :) Debresser (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the temptation of falling back on regulations and set rules & habits. And I know the risk of stopping to think and relying strictly on those. If WP serves any purpose, it's of offering the user/reader easy access to good information. That is the raison d'etre or "fundamental law" of WP. Period. All the WP rules are made to serve that purpose. When rules and logic come into conflict with each other, it's like a law being contested in front of the constitutional court. There, as here, the question asked is: does it serve the purpose, as stated by the "fundamental law"? The spirit of the law takes precedence over the letter of the law. So, when something helps the user/reader without harming the page, it's good and it should stay. Robotically removing good info based on some WP regulation, which is anyhow subject to constant improvement, is not constructive, meaning: harms the value of WP to the reader. Please consider this. Thank you. ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the image, follow the "more information" link to Commons, and there you will see the information provided by the uploader. In this case, the book the map is from. Zero^talk 02:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Hi, and thanks. I have, of course, but I am aware of no such book ("Palestine", 1889) by Conder. If you have it, or inf. about it, would you please upload it onto Conder's page? Thanks! ArmindenArminden (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here. It is one of many books derived from Conder's more extensive scientific books. Zero^talk 03:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Thank you! ArmindenArminden (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not insult people in your edit summaries WP:Portal isn't some obscure guideline. It is THE guideline that covers portals. It's also found in other MOS pages, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. I also gave other template that are usually used in sections. Bgwhite (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're following a pattern. I am offering smth. useful to the user, the only guideline worth following, and you come and take it out quoting formal WP rules. I'm not even going into how you happen to edit topics which are of direct importance to my work, but don't seem to interest you in any way until I touch them. I can pretend to be a (ro)bot and write like one, or I can speak up my mind, w/o calling names, but being frank. If this insults you, well, sometimes there are ways to insult logic and common sense, and that might be slightly more offensive. I won't take it any further. As you probably noticed, I attempted to deter a bot (Yobot) from making that same unfortunate revert once again, and it seemed as if it had worked; but I really didn't try to argue with you, because I frankly don't think I can reach you with my arguments. In radio terms, we don't seem to have a common frequency, none. So let's try and stay out of each other's way and leave things at this. Anything else would be a waste of time and nervous energy for both, and life is too short and the internet to huge to go into this. Thank you for your understanding. Adios, ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who's wasting their & my time on WP: please read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules first, before insisting on endless going-by-the-letter reverts, mono- or dialogues and the like. Thanks. ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In British maps of the mandate period, the site is called "Kh. Umm Jūna". I don't know a source calling it that while it was still a living village. Zero^talk 00:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arminden, I noticed you have a running threat with Yerevantsi on Armenian Quarter. I wondered if I could help but I had a bit of trouble following the discussion. What was the original problem? You can respond on my talk page if you want. Thanks. Foreignshore (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Running thread, not threat. Sorry! Foreignshore (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Foreignshore: Hi, and thanks! Yereveantsi seemed to be the "representative" of all things Armenian in Jerusalem, but maybe it's only the name that made me think that. I tried to figure out what actually IS the Armenian Quarter (AQ), since when is it there and how did the boundaries vary in time, how is it defined etc. I have formulated it as briefly and well as I could on the talk page under "Boundaries...?". If you want, please take a look. I always try to define the topic as precisely as possible before starting to deal with it, and the AQ is not so well defined, the "ideal" map is a perfect rectangle, but some bits in the east are now counted as part of the Jewish Quarter, which brings in the propagandists who spoil every discussion concerning Israel/Palestine. So facts first :-) That brings us to the next talk page topic: "Encroachment of Jewish Qtr: demography & history, or political pressure?". The maps differ, by choosing one over another one takes position in a dispute.

Then I tried to research smth. online, with little success. Is Thoros an Armenian version of Theodore? Is there a saint by that name? I'll copy here my question from the AQ talk page: St. T(h)oros Church is puzzling me. Hethum I built it in memory of his son killed in battle by the Mamluks, but Prince T(h)oros was not a saint, so the St. T(h)oros Church must have been dedicated to/named for a Saint T(h)oros. Who would that be? If you can find out, please add him, even as a "red link", to the respective disambiguation page (Thoros, Toros, Theodore?), and please link the name on the St. Toros Church page to that saint.

That's that. Thank you for offering to help out, no matter if you do or don't have any answers. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my latest post at Talk:Kadesh_(Israel)#Propose_deletion_:-.29_.2F_RENAMING. Please also review WP:SHOUT. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm preparing an article: see here. I'm not sure about the title, since there is a similarly named modern body that shouldn't be confused with it. If you know of any good sources or have suggestions for improvement, please let me know. Something missing is the way in which it interacted with the archaeological bodies like ASOR, PEF, FrenchOne, etc.. Zero^talk 04:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero. Great idea. I would add "Mandate" to the title, either at the beginning or before the brackets: Mandate Palestine's DoA (...) / DoA, Mandate Palestine (...) "Mandatory" would work as well, but the title is quite long already as it is. If you add "Mandate" or "Mandatory", you might even drop the years from the title. This wording is very explicit and I did come across it, don't think anyone will object or ask for sources. Now I have to run, the real world got me back again. Thank you for calling!

PS: links or cross-reference I can think of

• British Museum -- Department of Antiquities (founded in 1807). After a brief online search, I couldn't find any British state-run institution that existed in 1920 and could have been the inspiration for the ~ and its name, maybe this one was?
• Mandatory Pal. -- Government
• IAA
• Department of Antiquities of Jordan < Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities
• Pal. equivalent
• Rockefeller Museum

Arminden (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New edition at Department of Antiquities of Mandatory Palestine. Zero^talk 12:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and congratulations!Arminden (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:"The Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage has conducted work in the West Bank since 1994."- what about the Gaza Strip? 48-67: the Egyptians?Arminden (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I left it out because I'm not sure about it. Zero^talk 01:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now the main article is Wadi al-Hasa. Both Wadi Hasa and Wadi Zered are redirects to it. In the process I lost your talk page comment. I hope it is ok now. Zero^talk 10:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Thank you so much! One day I'll learn that, too. Probably... :-) Arminden (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made some little redirect cycles, then I turned it into a big mess of redirect cycles with the page text actually deleted. I needed to use my administrator super-powers to undelete it, move it to a temporary name, delete all of the mess, then rename it back to its proper name. Zero^talk 11:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I truly apologise. I had no idea. First I renamed it very easily to "Wadi Hasa", which is used quite frequently in English, but then I wanted to add the article al- and the simple option was somehow gone from the menu. I guessed the "Wikipedia" option would do the trick, but it didn't. Two steps of mine, hundred of yours to fix it... Sorry again. There's a Romanian saying, one half-wit throws a stone into the well and hundred smart people work hard to pull it out again.Arminden (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise! It only took a minute. Zero^talk 23:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How did you know that i am a doctor?.i studied medical ethics very well and I am the 8th most editing user at medical context. What i do is according to wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here. So i just apply the conventional naming rule. Israel is a occupational entity and palestanian just defence to free their country. Palestine is for palestenian and if someone occupy thier houses they have the right to use any mean to restore their homes and country--مصعب (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CAMERA is an organization that exists entirely for propaganda purposes. It cannot under any circumstances be used as a source of fact as it is far below the required reliability. Zero^talk 11:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please note that any change to the lead of Jerusalem needs to be done with a consensus, you can't just make changes to the article's lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just did that a few days ago, only fixing obvious inaccuracies and pious mistakes and, so far, nobody has reverted my changes. The truth is in the pudding, still :) There are no holy cows, boldness (sorry, big word, but promoted as a WP guideline) is better than endless conversations (unless one is already retired and missing virtual company). Edited from my phone. Either me, when I find the time, or any decent editor with a PC, can add dozens of good sources supporting Shalem/Salim over the pretty-sounding "peace city" feel-good propaganda. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true in most cases, but Jerusalem had an RFC and then an ARBCOM decision, so the normal rules don't necessarily apply. You can see the talk page for more info. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if nobody disagrees with the edit, and it is a minor edit, I wouldn't wake sleeping dogs. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was just pointing it out, in case he accidentally puts in something pro-Israel and finds himself at AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me and pro-something? Joking, right?Arminden (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arminden, you are making a mess of the two articles Ancient synagogues in Israel and in Palestine. Please refrain from crossing from one to the other. You are practically enforcing some idea of yours about what the scope of these two respective articles should be without any prior discussion. You simply can't do that. Especially on articles where 1. there is prior discussion about this subject 2. WP:ARBPIA might be involved. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Hi. I don't get you. The pre-/post- 70 CE distinction is essential. What's the problem? I practically added a paragraph listing the pre-70 CE synagogues, which are of high interest to both Jews (before Yavneh and Yohanan ben Zakkai they only served as place of reading the Bible), and the Christians (Jesus preached in many of them). Also, making distinction between "State of Israel" and "Land of Israel" in the scope of the two pages is more than needed - I looked up smth. on "Israel" page and thought I'm reading a Hamas brochure till I understood that it's an (as such almost useless) sub-page of the larger "Palestine" page, which was only mentioned at "Also see", a category easily missed by most. The other edits are all minor, don't affect the previous structure. Please explain.

"Archaeologists have uncovered many remains of synagogues from over two thousand years ago" - not true. In the Land of Israel there are at the most 4: Umm el-Umdan at Modi'in, Tulul Abu el-Alayik (very uncertain), Gamla (contested by some), Modi'in Illit (little published). Not over 2000 years old, but still 2TP (so pre-70 CE) are a maximum of 7 more: Wadi Hamam (Nahal Arbel), City of David ("Theodotus synagogue"), Magdala, Masada, Herodium, posibly Capernaum, and Tel Rechesh in Nahal Tabor. Basta. Qumran, Jacob Ory's second, ghost synagogue at Chorazin, and Alexander Onn's at Shuafat only deserve a mention if one wants to be over-inclusive.

"Synagogues securely dated to before the destruction of the Temple" do NOT include Capernaum and Qumran. Capernaum (the black structure underneath the "white synagogue" of C4 has not been excavated except for some minor areas, it's no more than conjunction on the base of the principle "once holy, always holy" - plausible YES; "securely dated" - certainly not. Qumran: there is no proof whatsoever that any of the excavated rooms served as a synagogue; there are 2 large rooms which MIGHT have served this purpose, so weak conjecture, nothing else.

Dabura leads to a silly comics figure. The "Golan" addition might wake sleeping dogs (Israel, heh?), but that's not an argument for a wrong wikilink.

Please refrain from reverting en masse, unless you have GOOD arguments for each single element. I do in this case.Arminden (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more revert, and you'll find yourself reported for violating WP:ARBPIA. In addition, please also review WP:BRD. Pushing that revert button is still a big problem of yours. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, we'll talk this over on the talkpage, and we'll come up with something that improves the article. But you have to stop edit warring! Debresser (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. One (1, like in uno - eins - un) revert is never a "war". Get the facts right, then get back to work. Arminden (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two reverts, one on two articles. In any case, I think we are already forming some consensus on the talkpages. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
I see you added “Dubious-discuss” tags a while ago to a couple of statements here, but hadn't put anything on the talk page (per the relevant guideline) to explain what the problem is. Perhaps you could remedy that, as otherwise there is no obvious reason to keep them. Thanks, Moonraker12 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your edit summary here seemed a bit rude. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Killing civilians is a bit rude, too. And quite a bit rude is also sympathysing with it, and hiding a fact - terrorist, murder - behind euphemisms like "militant".Arminden (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Church of the Holy Sepulchre 13:46, 26 January 2018

quotation from article: "removal of the "Immovable Ladder","

Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, come to your senses. Check my edits and then start talking of "vandalising". You're so out of control that you can't even get the section title right. The "Immovable Ladder" isn't worth more than a footnote, definitely not a mention in the lead and 4 (!) wikilinks within the Holy Sepulchre article. That's the holiest church in Christianity, and the ladder is just a weird detail. It's still there, with one or two wikilinks, mentioned in a hat tag or whatever it's called, so basically yet another wikilink at the top the "facade" paragraph, and the whole ladder history is widely presented - that's far more space than it actually deserves. So calm down. Have a nice weekend, Arminden (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized the page, period. If you don't like that being linked there, then actually get rid of it rather than vandalize the page.Link Vandalism That's my opinion. quotation from article: "removal of the "Immovable Ladder"," (I don't care if the ladder is in the article zero times or a thousand times. But what you did is link vandalism. That's all I mean to say.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arminden, it looks like you made a typo at 13:46 on 26 January at Church of the Holy Sepulchre, writing Immovable Ladder, leaving the letter 'I' out of the wikilink brackets. See User talk:Geographyinitiative#This could have been a typo on Immovable Ladder?. I removed the word 'Vandalism' from the above header, since it is not vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see. EdJohnston, thank you! I thought the angry Geo guy made the typo when he started this nonsense here. Sorry for the typo. There is no way in the world it can be misconstrued as intentional - just follow the logic of my chain of edits. Enough of it, let's go on with our lives. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of Church of the Holy Sepulchre at 10:28, 26 January 2018 Arminden, the page was as follows:

quote from page: "of the "Immovable Ladder,""

after the change to Church of the Holy Sepulchre at 13:46, 26 January 2018 Arminden, the page was as follows:

quote from page: "of the "Immovable Ladder","

It is an example of 'changing internal or external links on a page to inappropriate targets'. link vandalism. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling." ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You violated 1rr on ARBPIA with this edit, kindly self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this report. Please note the result. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed you've done that. It's your job to source material that you want to add. You know about our verifiablity policy I'm sure. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be. I have it from Professor Gabriel Barkay. I'll look for a source if I find the time. It's a highly worthy bit of info, and has no bias whatsoever. Such are often incentives for other editors, much like red links. Always with the reader's benefit in mind, first and foremost! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:: Thank you Doug. It seems that Prof. Barkay still is close to the mainstream opinion as it flows around the Net, but the scholarly debate has moved on. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your edit at Tel Megiddo. If you don't have other sources ready try this one: Early_Iron_Age_Epigraphy_and_Chronological_Revision_a_summary_article_in_P._James_and_P._van_der_Veen_eds._Solomon_and_Shishak_ trespassers william (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Danny. It took a lot of reading, and in the end it seems that Prof. Barkay isn't so up-to-date anymore. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single sourced statement in the paragraph I edited, so it is fair game for deletion. Instead of deleting, I edited it for poor English and repetition. So much for trying to improve the article...Once you are reverting, by the way, you are welcome to re-add the ugly tag at top citing lack of references.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gilabrand:. It was a stub, I fleshed it out, added all the sources one can get relevant info from (except Piana), so now it's about slow patient work. There's nothing there I didn't find in Boas & Khamisy, Pringle or Biller, or in other good sources. I see no reason to remove good info at this stage. If you have the time, check out Mathias Piana, Burgen und Städte der Kreuzzugszeit, Michael Imhof Verlag (2008). It's great if you fix the English, but please w/o removing info. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arminden. Your recent edit [6] to Zimri (prince) restored unsourced material in violation of Wikipedia policy. Here's the relevant policy page: WP:V. And here's a relevant quote:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

If other sections are also in violation of WP:V, then they should be fixed, but the existence of unsourced material in the "Islam" section is not carte blanche to restore unsourced material elsewhere in the article, especially unsourced material that accuses living persons of belonging to a terrorist group. See WP:BLP. Alephb (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alephb. We have a misunderstanding. First, I did quote a valid source. Second, I don't think there were any names mentioned there, so no specific person can be affected; and apart from that, the four initial "Priests" have been legally convicted, which eliminates the issue of hearsay/POV or whatever. Cheers,

Good work but section headings should not be posed as questions, see MOS:HEADINGS. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could find opinions about Haarmann - I'm pretty dubious about him, not that I'm happy with Merlini either. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question marks: shortest way to indicate controversy. Otherwise risk of overly long headings for 2nd- or 3rd-grade paras.

Research: Doug, sorry, no time. Too much spent here as is. About to be killed for it :)

Your changes were unexplained, and they violated, WP:LANGVAR, MOS:DATEFORMAT and other things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi @Walter Görlitz:. If you prefer, we can communicate in German. You reversed wholesale w/o properly looking through the edits.

"Orthodox" requires a capital O, no discussions there.

Spaces: I edit quite a bit on my phone. In citation notes, long words like "accessdate" create awkward blanks; using a (WP allowed) hyphen solves the problem. Similarly, adding spaces between categories has the same result. Try and you'll see. Nobody has ever had an issue with it until now.

Spaces in and under headings: fully unneeded, not required - in ENGLISH Wikipedia, unlike other languages. However, separating picture files from the text by a space helps editors find what they're looking for.

I hope this clarifies my intentions. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to apply the capital "o". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How generous. You broke it,you fix it. Had enough of stiff, self-righteous WP patrolmen. Arminden (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arminden, just wanted to let you know that I altered your edits to Belmont. Belmont is already quite long and there is a disambiguation page for Belmonte, so I don't think we need to make Belmont even longer by adding 'Belmonte' items. And if we do decide to add Belmonte, we should add them all. Leschnei (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah into Holy Fire. 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) 16:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea. Big BS, anyway, none of us is here for the "credit", but donating time for the sake of the user. I did what I could - I'm just using my phone in a hotel room after work. If you have time to spare, pls try to add the 2018 TV interview of the Armenian cleric who witnessed 3 times how the Patriarch lit the candles from a lamp. Cheers,

@Zero0000 and Mannanan51: Hi, sorry to bother, I still lack some basic editing skills. Could you please create a page for "Theoctistus of Palestine", using what's already there on the Euthymius page and the disambiguation page? Thank you as always! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is created. I leave the copy-editing to you. Zero^talk 09:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000 and Mannanan51: "It is created" - the words of a true demiurge! Many thanks, truly grateful. Arminden (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arminden, I wanted to thank you for your very good and pertinent edits on Mosaic of Rehob. Keep-up the good work!Davidbena (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: David, thank you so much! I really appreciate it.

User:Arminden, shalom. As you questioned whether or not there was a synagogue named "Rambam" in Jerusalem, the following link is to allay all doubts: Enjoy! Click here. ---Davidbena (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: David, hi, and thank you! I have searched as much as I could, and have in the end written to the contributor who has taken & posted the picture, and on the Wikimedia page, as well, waiting for answers like yours. Almost all existing "Rambam Synagogue" postings describe or show the Ramban Synagogue, so I thought that it's always a case of typo/mix-up. I will amend my postings. Thanks and cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already corrected three of them. If there are more that need correcting, you'll be the judge of that.Davidbena (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arminden, shalom. I noticed where you were taken aback by the way some of our Wikipedia pages are written in such a way as to place a transliterated foreign word before its actual English meaning. My humble view on this matter is that it depends on what the article actually treats about. In Sefer Torah it seems relatively alright to place the English meaning before its Hebrew transliteration, but I must say that this is not always the case. Take, for example, other foreign words used now in English: Hamantash, or Shofar, or Za'atar, or Genmaicha, or Onsen, or Wampum, or Sushi, or Minyan, or Glasnost, or Perestroika, among an endless host of other foreign loan-words whose names are known as such by most English speakers. The article Tallit, it would seem, falls into this last category, since it is well-known by such name. I see no rule that requires of us to put the English meaning first. Of course, an explanation is almost always given in ordinary English which explains the meanings of these foreign words.Davidbena (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena:, Hi David! I think you slightly misunderstood something. I am very much aware that languages have always borrowed words from other languages when needed. What is as well known to me, is that in religious Jewish circles it is very common to mix Yiddish or Hebrew terms into the language spoken in the country of residence, and mainly religious terms. There is nothing new here. The problem is, unlike sushi or pizza, tefillin or tallit are words not understood by probably over 90% of the native speakers of that language (if not more), not to speak of Wikipedia users who look up English Wikipedia, but aren't all that fluent in English. I can assure you that the vast majority of Judaism-related terms are total Chinese to pretty much all of the Gentiles, and to a great many of the secular Jews. The more one is immersed into a certain lifestyle, the harder it becomes to realise how little known that particular lifestyle is to non-members. So, I have zero problem with Torah, bagels, maybe also gefilte fish being used as such: but none of the terms I replaced in the articles are widely known outside religious Jewish circles. Just do a test, and you'll be surprised. Beyond anything I might say here, that could sound subjective, I am sure Wikipedia must have some guidelines regarding non-English terms for which there is a well-established English equivalent (tefillin-phylacteries, tallit-prayer shawl), and the obligation to explain in plain English those which do not have English equivalents. Honestly, I have learned most of these terms in English first, from books and alike, and some I still don't understand unless they're explained in English - and you can see that I'm not an absolute beginner in this field, even though I'm nowhere close to being well-versed, either. Many of these articles I looked up in order to learn something new, and the Hebrew was an obstacle. So I guess I'm a good case of (average?) "Wikipedia user". Thanks for keeping up the dialog, and all the best - Arminden (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proper English word for Tefillin is "phylacteries." A simple redirect (e.g. Phylacteries) will often correct the problem of unfamiliarity with the Hebrew word, but even here it will take you to a disambiguation page with other relative meanings. Jewish audiences make-up a large percentage of users on the English Wikipedia, and almost all Jewish readers will understand the Hebrew loan-words tallit and tefillin. In fact, many non-Jews already recognise these words for what they are. If in doubt, you should raise the issue on the article's Talk-Page. This will help you reach a larger consensus. The gist of the matter is this: Even where a word such as Onsen is not understood by all English speakers, its specific and prominent use in one language makes it a legal term of use in other languages.Davidbena (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David, I am exposed to many hundreds if not thousands of non-Jews of various origins annually, and I think I know from first-hand experience how well they are accustomed to Jewish terminology when confronted with it: not. Let's not forget the difference between the bunch of people active here as editors, or our friends from a chosen environment, and the vast majority of people who do look up WP every now and then, but aren't studying the topics in depth. As about secular Jews... you'd be surprised. Traditional education isn't what it used to be :) About many Jews using Wikipedia: so what, and then it's fair to leave the rest outside? I won't even start reminding you who's been using that argument against Jews. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden:, Even so, a non-Japanese person who is not familiar with the Japanese words Onsen and Genmaicha, or a non-Jew who is not familiar with the Yiddish words Gefilte fish and Hamantash, or one who is not familiar with the Russian or Arabic languages, but who read pages containing other foreign loan-words such as Glasnost, or Perestroika, or Za'atar, that in itself is not enough to diminish from their use on Wikipedia, nor to change the article's format. The criteria, I would think, would be that these foreign words are prominently used in their native country and enjoy some wide-spread popularity within their country so as to warrant its use in the English-language online encyclopedia. If you wish to change Wikipedia's policy regarding this, take the issue to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidbena, David, did you look at my actual edits? I always left the Hebrew term in place AT LEAST once on the page, in the lead or in another prominent place, but replaced it with the well-established English word (where there is one) in the rest of the text. Where the term is very specific and has no popular English equivalent, I added an explanation next to it, because constant clicking is a big nuisance; the user will thank me :) All in all, I am sure no rule needs to be changed: ENGLISH must have priority, and specific Hebrew terms have to be mentioned AND explained. Nothing revolutionary. Whereas the opposite--yes, that does break the rules of any encyclopaedia.
What's with you and Perestroika? I loved Gorbachev for it, but it has nothing to do with this discussion: it's like champagne or Renaissance -- it only covers the entire meaning if you use the original word. In this case it's a Russian, but by now international, word. For tefillin you have phylacteries; for Perestroika you don't have any English word. Comes from the fact that Christian Europe has been dealing with Jews and their religion ever since... forever; the USSR and Japanese food are, in comparison, fast-passing trends. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did look at your edits, and with the exception of Tallit, you are right. Even with "Tallit" it was unnecessary, in my view. I was more concerned about a trend here, where you would go through all the foreign-word pages and preempt a term that is explained later in the page. Perestroika was used here merely as an example of a foreign loan-word, perhaps not readily understood by many who speak English, and yet requires no further explanation before being introduced with the word.Davidbena (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is not appropriate. nableezy - 23:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: you're right, sorry, I apologise. I was getting desperate. The text was so substandard that it was hard to believe it made it in. When it comes to Muslim history, people are so unaware of their own national past, and in turn are so soaked in propaganda that it's painful. The text was mixing up Muslim dynasties centuries apart, but made a point in favourably comparing Ghassanids to Herodians in holding on to a region. Duh... Where's the point, other than "Arabs are better than Jews"? It's schoolyard level. Of course, there was no "Byzantine Rome" when the Herodians were around, and the term itself is a bit of an original invention. Things like Qutuz not being a sultan yet at 'Ain Jalut are small mistakes in comparison. Or "the Heights represented a formidable obstacle the Crusader armies were not able to conquer", when they actually held Banias for decades and had a condominium with Damascus over the Sawad/Suete for quite a while.
Maybe you can help me learn something: who were the Arab geographers of the sixth century describing the Golan as a jebel? I say 6th because that was the topic of the quoted book, but maybe I'm wrong and "Byzantine period" means later here, even though it becomes problematic if that still can be termed Byzantine if it means later than 636. If it's a correct fact though, I'd be truly very happy to learn about it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally frank with you, Im not actually Syrian (or Palestinian), so it isnt really my own national past, and my interest in the Golan is mostly confined to the modern politics of it. You'l notice I have not even touched any of your edits on this subject (the only one I reverted was your changing something about the modern political situation into a claimed from said). If I knew the answers to those questions I would certainly try to lend a hand, but to be honest in recognizing my own limitations, I dont know the answer to your question. Just the edit summary read as a bit demeaning, and as the edit itself was fine (as far as I know) I thought it better to nip that in the bud with you here. Take care, nableezy - 12:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arminden, I was scrolling at my talk page history and found your message. I remember now that I had removed it without reading. I do apologize for doing so. I know its been a few years already, but it just now dawned at me. I should've replied. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems that Nadav Na'aman, one of the most important Israeli archaeologists, doesn't have an article. Could it be? [7] [8] Might you be the one to create it? Hint, hint. Zero^talk 19:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: hi, and thank you for your trust. I'll be working away from home for quite a while, no way I can do it on my phone. Let's see when I'll manage to get to it. Life's getting in the way :) Have a great day.

Arminden, thanks for calling my attention to the fact that someone ought to write an article describing the import of the Latin term Plene scriptum. Well, there is now such an article. Thanks for nudging me in this direction.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: - David, thank you, I'm rushing now to read it!

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

advertenciarap060@RMaung (WMF) 2804:D45:E067:3500:9075:FD37:827C:7648 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arminden, shalom. Please see my response to your constructive edit on the Tarichaea article, which you can see here.Davidbena (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that silly error on the Lovers of Cluj-Napoca article. Can't believe I didn't catch that. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment on Talk:Bobby Fischer#Ben Klassen. Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jerm. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Jerm (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerm: Hi Jerm. Sorry, we don't know each other yet. What edit are you referring to please? Arminden (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know exactly which one. If you can't maintain civility, then you don't need to be editing. You also reverted again and ignored my edit summary concerning WP:BRD. Jerm (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had some 3 reversals lately. Please don't assume, be more specific. Arminden (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Alexander Jannaeus, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jerm (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerm: I must leave the house now, but let's invite some distinguished arbiters later in the day. For now, please refrain from bulk-reversing. If you think you must disagree with one or another of my edits, please discuss them here or there; we can reach agreement, as you have seen these past days. Bulk reversals though and gratuitous accusations of vandalism harm both the quality of the article, and your own reputation, so please hold back with those. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani and Zero0000: I see Jerm won't accept a civilised discussion. Please do take a look at the edits [9] and decide. Thank you very much. Arminden (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove sourced content and manipulate it where it contradicts the source, then I have a right to remove it. Per WP:BRD, you should've been starting discussions at the articles talk page to begin with, but I have do it for you since the only thing you know how to do is revert. Yes, all you do is revert editors who disagree with your changes. Your editing style and the way you interact with other editors who disagree with you hasn't changed since you started editing. And I already know you are familiar with editors @Nishidani and Zero0000:. Per WP:CANVAS, such behavior like pinging other editors is not really acceptable. You could have at least started a discussion, but you want them to establish an argument on your behalf or preserve your new changes. Either way, I am treating your new changes as disruptive and vandal-like. Jerm (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jerm (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw the ANI thread and have looked at your recent activity. You really need to take on board MOS:ERA. The project has very little tolerance for people churning stylistic choices like this without consensus. EEng 09:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me add something else. Because of the specialized nature of the material I can't judge a lot of the changes you made; some where clearly improvements, the fixing of a comma splice being one case my eye happened to fall on. In addition, you're right that it's best that other editors selectively review and back out bits and pieces of your changes, leaving other parts they think useful in place, but when you make very large numbers of changes in a single edit that becomes very hard to do. My advice would be edit one section at a time. EEng 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just walked into a hornets nest, changing AD to CE. I learned that here: I thought it would be "a cakewalk" to change Siege of Jerusalem (70 AD) to Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE): hah! ...was I ever wrong. If I recall correctly, the WP:ERA rules came out of some of the very first arbcom cases, 10-15+ years ago: that is why they are so cumbersome, (see eg WP:Requests for arbitration/Sortan; WP:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2) Huldra (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are we actually doing here? How many normal people, who are not themselves editing, do actually use these articles? Arminden (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After your revert of my removal of a self-reference on Herodium and your explanation in the edit summary, I had another look at WP:SELFREFERENCE, and decided to open a talkpage discussion. I'd be grateful for your input at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid#Referring_to_other_sections_in_article. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with it in the article itself. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made it better, but see the discussion, and specifically the reference to WP:CLICKHERE, that your edit did not solve all issues. Debresser (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for my reaction at Alexander J. When I saw that you were the one who reverted me, all I was thinking was the previous edit war we had at/near Christmas, but you started the discussion this time, and I all I did was contradict WP:CIVIL in hopes that the discussion would end ASAP. Jerm (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[10] and User talk:Khruner#Land of Punt. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: No, I hadn't detected it. Thank you for your help! (S)he seems a bit over the top in every matter concerning the Horn of Africa. I'll let you police the waves, my WP times will be over for a while, the real world is calling, damn... Till next time, and take care! Arminden (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You can ask me to send you articles from Haaretz but you will get into trouble if you post them here. I suggest you remove it asap. Zero^talk 05:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Hi, and thanks, like always :) Arminden (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: hi! I haven't heard of you in a while. I've probably pinged you a few times to often, too. I hope you're OK and using the Corona break the best way possible. All the best, and take care! Arminden (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arminden. I'm trying to get some research done but Wikipedia keeps throwing up interesting historical questions that I'm addicted to as you know. Despite being house-bound, I can't keep up. Be safe. Zero^talk 12:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Thank you and stay well!Arminden (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a copy of the book, I'll have one soon in pdf, you can email me. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: sure I do. I vaguely remember Zero sending me a link or smth about how to email via Wikipedia, but I still don't have a clue and I can't find it. If you don't mind... And if you do ("what the heck...!"), thanks anyway, I very much appreciate you offering. Arminden (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a link on the side of an editor's talk page, if they have it enabled, and also at the top of mine. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why did you remove the type "Jewish" from the infobox in this edit? On a sidenote, it would be helpful for other editors if you'd use edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, I think "type" refers to smth. more specific, like right of passage, agricultural, spring festival... Second, it says "Observed by: Jews" right above it. Avoiding overkill. Nothing else, I don't have any intention of passing on Lag BaOmer to the Baptists, Hindus or Sunnis :)

I quote from Template:Infobox holiday:

Type (param "type")	Color
islam, islamic	LightGreen
judaism, juda, jewish, jew	LightSkyBlue
buddhism, buddhist, buddha	PaleGoldenRod
christian, christ, christianity	Lavender
asian, asian festival	RosyBrown
secular	DarkGray
national, international, local, group	LightViolet
historical, cultural, patriotic, ethnic	LightSalmon
pagan	DarkKhaki
commercial	Yellow
hindu, hinduism	Orange
shinto, shintoism	Light red
default	LightSteelBlue

Debresser (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you really think "Observed by: Jews. Type: Jewish" makes sense, go ahead. I don't.Arminden (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. I am talking about something else. Turns out that the "type" parameter is there to change the default color of the infobox. That is all it does. If it were for the informational value, then of course nothing is added by it. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Ah, I see. Then it belongs back in, of course, and sorry. Maybe "Observed by: Jews" can then be left out? It just looks silly. But that's the digital form, repetitive, like one-and-zero, little can be done w/o lots of coding. Thank you for your patience. Maybe you can take a quick look at Kohlit and its talk-page? It's more in your domain. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary of this edit is not neutral. Historians also talk about "rule". I don't mind the edit itself, since they are basically synonymous, but the edit summary shows hidden intens that are not purely academic. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Test). Dovid, thanks. This damn phone doesn't work properly, it didn't save my longer answer to you twice already. Arminden (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching your talkpage, and will patiently await your longer reply. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: So, sorry if it upset you. It seems evident that both Jewish-Zionist and Arab-Palestinian nationalists have their favourite historical periods and those they hate, which sometimes even coincide (see Crusader period). "Era" is a grand term, "rule" is suggestive ("it's not their place, but they rule it by force"); "period" is neutral. Zionist historiography used to talk about "Canaanite period" and "Israelite period", terms abandoned in favour of Bronze and Iron Age. The Muslim conquest, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid (sub)periods together form the Early Muslim period, sorry for those allergic to periods in the history of Jerusalem that include "Muslim" in their name. The Crusader period is not much loved by either side. The Mamluk and Ottoman periods are distinct from each other, unless one sees all Muslims as the same old... something. Wherever there still are territories without a universally recognised status, Wiki editors can go by preference or minimal consensus, i.e. try their luck with Jordanian/Israeli rule or period, 'cause neither will make everybody happy. Anyway, historiography is a highly ideological field, and the terminology reflects that. That's what I meant. So yes, sometimes I'm more diplomatic and sometimes less, I apologise if it upset you, and I'll try to hold back a bit more. But what I wrote is pretty much fact - and obvious to anyone. There is a fluid line between hypocrisy and diplomacy. And civility towards intentional reality twisters is sometimes a difficult proposal :) Have a great spring day! Arminden (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't upset, since I agree that "period" is a great term. At the same time, I often see "rule" used as well in history books. The word "rule" is also a fact, not, as some interpret it, a claim for a lack of legitimacy. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]